I don't know whether Bond's background is entirely taken from the novels as I haven't read them b.
Might I suggest you do. Could be a whole new experience for you..
How comes there are those who pertain what is best for Bond when they haven't read the novels.. 8-)
Its where it all stems from...
Unless you read a Fleming novel before you ever saw a Bond film, I don't think it is fair to judge the films by how much they follow the books. Whether or not a Bond film is good shouldn't be based on how closely it follows the books or the literary character. YOLT and TSWLM are two great classic Bond films that have completely original stories with a very non-Fleming character.
The Fleming novels, are were you get to understand Bond for yourself, the films
are other people's interpretation of the character, ... "1953, unmistakable !"
They are well worth a read. -{
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
I don't know whether Bond's background is entirely taken from the novels as I haven't read them b.
Might I suggest you do. Could be a whole new experience for you..
How comes there are those who pertain what is best for Bond when they haven't read the novels.. 8-)
Its where it all stems from...
True but the film Bond and the Bond genre have established themselves as their own entity. So I can only talk of Bond as he is established in the film but there's fifty years and twenty three films. I am looking forward to reading the books though once I find a spare moment
I don't know whether Bond's background is entirely taken from the novels as I haven't read them b.
Might I suggest you do. Could be a whole new experience for you..
How comes there are those who pertain what is best for Bond when they haven't read the novels.. 8-)
Its where it all stems from...
True but the film Bond and the Bond genre have established themselves as their own entity. So I can only talk of Bond as he is established in the film but there's fifty years and twenty three films. I am looking forward to reading the books though once I find a spare moment
Nope. They are the same identity - why do you think we get annoyed when they stray. The books are a tough read.Bond is not very sympathetic in them. But they are also a wonderful read.
Were experts on 007 you know...
1. For Your Eyes Only 2. The Living Daylights 3 From Russia with Love 4. Casino Royale 5. OHMSS 6. Skyfall
I remember Stephen Fry on QI one night talking about how he discovered
Bond as a 12 or 13 year old boy, how he loved the Books, and someone on the
Panel said they must give them a read. To which Stephen said he envied them,
as they would get to read them for the first time. -{
So I can only say the same, when you get the time to read those wonderful
Books of Ian Fleming, I too will envy you Lady Ice, as you are in for a fantastic
Journey through a time capsule, of intrigue and adventure. I only wish I could do
It again, ....... For the first time.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
I think you will find them a tough read - Bond is not a namby pamby baby. I like the backgrounds to the villain.s Now you learn about Dr No, Rosa Klebb, Blofeld baqckground. But the card gambling and underwater scenes are pin sharp..
1. For Your Eyes Only 2. The Living Daylights 3 From Russia with Love 4. Casino Royale 5. OHMSS 6. Skyfall
I think you will find them a tough read - Bond is not a namby pamby baby. I like the backgrounds to the villain. How you learn about Dr No, Rosa Klebb, Blofeld. But the card gambling and underwater scenes are pin sharp..
Some of the films I really enjoy have completely horrible characters with no redemptive qualities (I really like dark comedy) so I don't mind at all if he is unsympathetic.
No. Even taking into account the "internal logic" of Bond films, or this film in particular, the plot is very hard to digest in terms of credibility. It relies on amazing coincidence and character stupidity to work. I like the film, it has many great scenes, but it cannot escape this flaw.
I initially wasn't impressed with it on my first viewing, but having watched it again, I find it great entertainment. -{
I say it will be regarded as a classic, years from now. It didn't make a ton of money worldwide for no good reason, surely? :007)
Going by the unspoken Bond actors' axiom that "The third time's the charm", I would say it would be regarded as Daniel Craig's GF or TSWLM (opinions are still divided over TWINE).
"Well, he certainly left with his tails between his legs."
Going by the unspoken Bond actors' axiom that "The third time's the charm", I would say it would be regarded as Daniel Craig's GF or TSWLM (opinions are still divided over TWINE).
I think Casino Royale has more glamour; Craig is decidedly unglamorous in many parts of SF and the film intentionally subverted typical Bondian images of glamour (Bond drinking Heinekan, Bond being physically not up-to-scratch, Bond's dubious seduction of Severine). SF may have glamorous moments but I think that it can't be viewed as escapist glamour in the way that GF can.
I think Casino Royale has more glamour; Craig is decidedly unglamorous in many parts of SF and the film intentionally subverted typical Bondian images of glamour (Bond drinking Heinekan, Bond being physically not up-to-scratch, Bond's dubious seduction of Severine). SF may have glamorous moments but I think that it can't be viewed as escapist glamour in the way that GF can.
That's true and I'm okay with that as long as they find the balance again in SPECTRE. AFAIK the literary bond wasn't always glamorous, especially when at home in England, so I'm fine with bond having a beer or being out of shape sporadically in the movies as well. But he always gets back on track.
One thing that worries me judging from the SPECTRE trailer is that it seems even darker than Skyfall (which was pretty dark). I could handle a bit of "the good life" in between, like CR which had a serious but very sunny beginning in Africa and absolutely gorgeous shots in the Bahamas. B-)
"I'm afraid I'm a complicated woman. "
"- That is something to be afraid of."
Classic Films are often distinguished or unique works of cinema that have transcended time and trends, with indefinable quality and are often universal favorites that hold up after repeated rescreenings.
If the question is whether or not SF will be considered a classic in regards to the series alone - time will tell. If the series continues for many years to come, certain entries will stand out and I personally believe this will be one of them, for many reasons. One of the largest factors is that it is part of EON's reboot - and that by itself will be considered a benchmark in the evolution of the series. There were really only two standards that EON established that the series could be measured against. The first was Connery and the beginning of the series. It started an international phenomena similar to that of the Beatles. All the other actors and films were measured against those early films, which is why many considered them to be the classics. The second standard was CR. EON discarded almost everything from before so they could reinvigorate it and keep it current and they did it for Fleming fans the best way possible - by using his first novel as the catalyst and getting a good actor who took the character seriously.
I think SF will eventually be considered a classic for a number of reasons. One is that it is the only film that dares to show a human Bond as in the novels who has to prove he not only can resurrect himself after almost being killed, but proves his relevance in the modern age of the digital cold war. Another is the cinematography. It's one of the most photographically creative and attractive films to watch. Another is the number of new things in the film- a new Q, M, Moneypenny and headquarters - the amount of scenes set in London - Skyfall itself and looking back briefly into the ghosts of Bond's past. Yet another is how they've made Bond into a character worth learning about. I'm not looking forward to SPECTRE just because it's the next Bond film - I'm looking forward to it because they may reveal even more about Bond. They're are a ton of action films that are made now and most go to see the effects and stunts as much as anything else. I no longer want to go a Bond films just to see a new gadget or a new villain. Now I want to see more of Bond himself - it's intriguing to me and I think it's one of the qualities that will help distinguish it in the years to come over the other action films - unless EON screws it up and returns to the generic formula they used in the past.
Yes, it has flaws. All films do, even the ones that history has categorized as classics of cinema, but that is not how classics are measured. It is whether they're quality holds up over time, and I believe SF will.
I'm having a rewatch of Skyfall today so perhaps my mind will be changed, but I think Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace as a pair already nail emotional Bond. Skyfall is an unnecessary reboot; it's nice that Q and Moneypenny are back but the series was still fine without them. I know that traditionally there's little continuity between the Bond films anyway but to go from two films that had clear continuity to something completely different doesn't work with the supposed 'realistic' characterisation. In QoS Bond learnt the perils of being fuelled by emotion and makes his decision to return to duty; his characterisation in Skyfall doesn't feel like it leads on from the previous film.
If there is a long gap between Spectre and the next Bond, do you think they'll do a third reboot?
it's nice that Q and Moneypenny are back but the series was still fine without them.
Nope, Moneypenny and Q are Bond-essentials and they surely were missed by A LOT of fans.
They are quite different though to Q and Moneypenny; I suppose Spectre will allow them to bed in a lot more but to me it felt like they were shoe-horned in- perhaps because they weren't there for the first two Craig films. Was there a particular reason why they weren't in the first two?
Comments
Unless you read a Fleming novel before you ever saw a Bond film, I don't think it is fair to judge the films by how much they follow the books. Whether or not a Bond film is good shouldn't be based on how closely it follows the books or the literary character. YOLT and TSWLM are two great classic Bond films that have completely original stories with a very non-Fleming character.
are other people's interpretation of the character, ... "1953, unmistakable !"
They are well worth a read. -{
I am stunned by those who haven't read them...
True but the film Bond and the Bond genre have established themselves as their own entity. So I can only talk of Bond as he is established in the film but there's fifty years and twenty three films. I am looking forward to reading the books though once I find a spare moment
Nope. They are the same identity - why do you think we get annoyed when they stray. The books are a tough read.Bond is not very sympathetic in them. But they are also a wonderful read.
Were experts on 007 you know...
Bond as a 12 or 13 year old boy, how he loved the Books, and someone on the
Panel said they must give them a read. To which Stephen said he envied them,
as they would get to read them for the first time. -{
So I can only say the same, when you get the time to read those wonderful
Books of Ian Fleming, I too will envy you Lady Ice, as you are in for a fantastic
Journey through a time capsule, of intrigue and adventure. I only wish I could do
It again, ....... For the first time.
He's got that Fleming sweep which draws you along..
Some of the films I really enjoy have completely horrible characters with no redemptive qualities (I really like dark comedy) so I don't mind at all if he is unsympathetic.
out of a few scrapes.
even better. -{
Agreed - and it will lose popularity as time goes by.
I say it will be regarded as a classic, years from now. It didn't make a ton of money worldwide for no good reason, surely? :007)
Going by the unspoken Bond actors' axiom that "The third time's the charm", I would say it would be regarded as Daniel Craig's GF or TSWLM (opinions are still divided over TWINE).
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
I think Casino Royale has more glamour; Craig is decidedly unglamorous in many parts of SF and the film intentionally subverted typical Bondian images of glamour (Bond drinking Heinekan, Bond being physically not up-to-scratch, Bond's dubious seduction of Severine). SF may have glamorous moments but I think that it can't be viewed as escapist glamour in the way that GF can.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
One thing that worries me judging from the SPECTRE trailer is that it seems even darker than Skyfall (which was pretty dark). I could handle a bit of "the good life" in between, like CR which had a serious but very sunny beginning in Africa and absolutely gorgeous shots in the Bahamas. B-)
"- That is something to be afraid of."
Classic Films are often distinguished or unique works of cinema that have transcended time and trends, with indefinable quality and are often universal favorites that hold up after repeated rescreenings.
If the question is whether or not SF will be considered a classic in regards to the series alone - time will tell. If the series continues for many years to come, certain entries will stand out and I personally believe this will be one of them, for many reasons. One of the largest factors is that it is part of EON's reboot - and that by itself will be considered a benchmark in the evolution of the series. There were really only two standards that EON established that the series could be measured against. The first was Connery and the beginning of the series. It started an international phenomena similar to that of the Beatles. All the other actors and films were measured against those early films, which is why many considered them to be the classics. The second standard was CR. EON discarded almost everything from before so they could reinvigorate it and keep it current and they did it for Fleming fans the best way possible - by using his first novel as the catalyst and getting a good actor who took the character seriously.
I think SF will eventually be considered a classic for a number of reasons. One is that it is the only film that dares to show a human Bond as in the novels who has to prove he not only can resurrect himself after almost being killed, but proves his relevance in the modern age of the digital cold war. Another is the cinematography. It's one of the most photographically creative and attractive films to watch. Another is the number of new things in the film- a new Q, M, Moneypenny and headquarters - the amount of scenes set in London - Skyfall itself and looking back briefly into the ghosts of Bond's past. Yet another is how they've made Bond into a character worth learning about. I'm not looking forward to SPECTRE just because it's the next Bond film - I'm looking forward to it because they may reveal even more about Bond. They're are a ton of action films that are made now and most go to see the effects and stunts as much as anything else. I no longer want to go a Bond films just to see a new gadget or a new villain. Now I want to see more of Bond himself - it's intriguing to me and I think it's one of the qualities that will help distinguish it in the years to come over the other action films - unless EON screws it up and returns to the generic formula they used in the past.
Yes, it has flaws. All films do, even the ones that history has categorized as classics of cinema, but that is not how classics are measured. It is whether they're quality holds up over time, and I believe SF will.
If there is a long gap between Spectre and the next Bond, do you think they'll do a third reboot?
Nope, Moneypenny and Q are Bond-essentials and they surely were missed by A LOT of fans.
They are quite different though to Q and Moneypenny; I suppose Spectre will allow them to bed in a lot more but to me it felt like they were shoe-horned in- perhaps because they weren't there for the first two Craig films. Was there a particular reason why they weren't in the first two?