How did you get that when I wrote that most of Brosnan's films were annoying??
Simply by the fact you describe yourself as a Bond fan and state that the in your opinion the bond films ended with the Brosnan era. Also history teaches me certain lessons.
So you say...yet you claim "I seem to love Brozzers films" when I wrote no such thing. You're trying to turn this into a personal thing, which is lame, and more a sign of your issues than my own. My thread was just my opinion, and I appreciate those who have responded on here with their own equally-valid responses. As I admited upthread, I didn't even realize I was presenting a double standard.
I'm not making anything personal, you've posted a thread stating your opinion and I've engaged with it, perhaps you should have stated you would only entertain posts from those who agree or certain members!
I'm not quite sure what you expected in response?
You havnt really mentioned Spectre yet, what's your thoughts? Moneypenny is back behind a desk and it does have a different tone to DC's previous bond films.
Bit of movie trivia ( from Danny Baker )
In 1971 top 3 UK box office films: Get Carter, Diamonds Are Forever & On The Buses.
OTBs was #1 - taking twice as much as other 2 combined
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Skyfall was the most successful British film of
All time. Even beating Mutiny on the Busses and
Confessions of a window cleaner.
That still floors me. I think it was just the right film at the right time, and you honestly can't plan for things like that to happen. There's no magic formula that will work 100% of the time to give you a hit film...sometimes you simply deliver the right product at the right time and print money.
Your quite right. It's interesting though. 1. Skyfall 2012 Daniel Craig $1,108,561,008
2. Thunderball 1965 Sean Connery $1,014,941,117
3. Goldfinger 1964 Sean Connery $912,257,512
4. Spectre 2015 Daniel Craig $880,669,186
5. Live and Let Die 1973 Roger Moore $825,110,761
6. You Only Live Twice 1967 Sean Connery $756,544,419
7. The Spy Who Loved Me 1977 Roger Moore $692,713,752
8. Casino Royale 2006 Daniel Craig $669,789,482
9. Moonraker 1979 Roger Moore $655,872,400
10. Diamonds Are Forever 1971 Sean Connery $648,514,469
11. Quantum of Solace 2008 Daniel Craig $622,246,378
12. From Russia with Love 1963 Sean Connery $576,277,964
13. Die Another Day 2002 Pierce Brosnan $543,639,638
14. Goldeneye 1995 Pierce Brosnan $529,548,711
15. On Her Majesty's Secret Service 1969 George Lazenby $505,899,782
16. The World is Not Enough 1999 Pierce Brosnan $491,617,153
17. For Your Eyes Only 1981 Roger Moore $486,468,881
18. Tomorrow Never Dies 1997 Pierce Brosnan $478,946,402
19. The Man with the Golden Gun 1974 Roger Moore $448,249,281
20. Dr. No 1962 Sean Connery $440,759,072
21. Octopussy 1983 Roger Moore $426,244,352
22. The Living Daylights 1987 Timothy Dalton $381,088,866
Spectre at #4. The amount of people who claim
They need to make changes as Spectre wasn't a
Success
It was not a commercial failure by any means, critical and fan response was at very best mixed.More significantl for me was that none of the main players seemed enthused. I think SP coasted on Skyfall's success and momentum, but most importantly just was not up to snuff. Eon may have got away with it, but I can't imagine that anyone is particularly proud of it. 6 out of 10/ could do better rather than a fail in my book.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
I can understand that, but I have read some
Posts. Which have claimed that Bond 25 will
Be filmed in America. Because after every
Failure, they film in the US
This I very much doubt as filming in the US
Has become very expensive, and many American
Fans don't think of the US as an exotic location.
Although, intellectually it may not be the best,
but it is show business, and being #4 on the list
Is a great achievement.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
I think there is almost an element of snobbery when it comes to Bond films from some quarters like the film critics, sure Spectre was not a perfect film but then neither was Skyfall. I enjoyed it immensely, yes I can engage in some of the discussions about its faults or missed opportunities but that never detracts from my viewing pleasure and no bond film has left me questioning my fandom or that of others come to that.
For ME, classic Bond ended with Dalton. From then on it's been re-invention time. Most works, some doesn't- but it's all good. Only a period piece would give us true Bond; an agent swiftly on his way to burnout and probable death just wouldn't sell as a movie in these times.
Thanks to everyone for all the passionate responses – even to the guy who called me a prick! I had no idea I’d set off something like this, but I guess I should’ve expected it. At the very least, I started a 3-page discussion less than 24 hours after registering on the site… Thanks to everyone who put forth their arguments on why the Craig films can still be held in the same esteem as the original franchise…you haven’t made me want to WATCH them, but at least you’ve made me consider them in a more positive light.
On my blog I have a long-winded review of Kingsley Amis’s “The James Bond Dossier,” and in the comments thread I stumbled upon a similar realization as now – namely, that Amis’s wonderful book is basically a guideline as to what once made Bond so dangerous. It’s hard to believe now, but there was a time when Bond – literary and cinematic version – was considered dangerous, or at least a bad role model. The early books about Bond are all mostly apologies for Fleming’s creation, from Amis’s study to Boyd’s “The Devil With James Bond” (one of my favorites).
But what these early apologetic tomes teach us is that there was NEVER a time in which James Bond was considered just a typical representation of his era. Traveling around the world as a sort of government assassin, making quips, smoking incessant cigarettes, engaging in casual sex with exotic women, etc – this was, from the beginning, well apart from anyting that was considered a norm. Same goes for smacking a woman on the butt and telling her to shoo so the men can talk – contrary to revisionist opinion, men in those days generally treated women with respect (because they had, like, values and stuff back then).
So what I’m saying is, this concept of “changing Bond and his world to suit changing tastes” is a modern convention, as Bond was NEVER in accord with the tastes of his time.
Another realization I stumbled upon after reading Amis’s book is that this “bad influence” guideline STILL APPLIES – perhaps even more so now than in Fleming’s era. In particular Amis’s book should be used as a primer for any Bond continuation author; it’s almost a step-by-step guide on how to deliver a Bond story in all its pre-PC glory. However, it would appear that most of the modern Bond continuation authors are quite content in our progressivised era, and in fact want to bring their agenda into Bond’s world…which would be fine if they weren’t setting their books IN the Fleming era.
My issue (one of many, sadly) is that I’ve spent the past several years reading nothing but novels published in earlier times, in particular the ‘60s and ‘70s, and 95% of the movie’s I’ve watched are from that same era. So the result is I’m pretty steeped in what passed for commercial/genre fiction and films in those times, but really out of step with modern stuff. It’s inapppropriate to say this, even though it’s the truth, but this vintage pulp was almost exclusively written for and marketed to straight men – the idea of “broadening” the appeal is another modern convention. Given this, I think I can hazard a guess on how Fleming (or his widow, or even Amis) would feel about the reboot, with genders and races being changed for various characters – hell, if I’m not mistaken, Fleming’s widow railed against Amis writing a Bond novel, because she was afraid he’d imbue it with his leftist beliefs. Just imagine how these people would react to a female M or a black action-hero Moneypenny…
Speaking of which, I will admit when I’m wrong (despite what my wife claims), and I was wrong on the whole “black Moneypenny” thing, overlooking how Felix Leiter has changed ethnicities over the years – thanks to all of you who so happily pointed out my double standard there. I guess I didn’t even think of Felix because, at least to me, he’s not as much a staple Bond character as Miss M. is. And again, I bailed on the Craig flicks with CR, halfway through, so I am unaware of what’s happened in any of the ensuing films other than what I’ve seen in trailers or product-placement commercials. Here in the US at least one of the latter prominently featured the reboot Monneypenny, running around and driving a motorcycle and in general doing all the posturing which is demanded of “touch action chicks” in today’s entertainment, and if anything it just annoyed me – to be clear, it’s the “action babe” cliché I’m sick of, not so much the whole race thing, but as others have pointed out it sounds like this whole action makeover was a temporary thing for Monneypenny. But to me, an attractive lady running around in a leather catsuit and acting tough – black, white, or whatever – isn’t what I think of when I think “James Bond,” at least when the lady in question is supposed to be Monneypenny. I mean, Jinx, Wai Lin, or my favorites Fiona Volpe and Fatima Bush, that’s fine – they’re their own characters. They aren’t Monneypenny.
I realize a lot of this revisionism started in the Brosnan era, and I have to admit I haven’t actually watched a Brosnan movie from beginning to end since DAD, when it was first released. (And I’ve never even seen TWINE.) So my memories of his movies are filtered through a decade or two of hazy memories. (I bought the entire series on Blu Ray at a pittance the other year, but when I tried to watch GE I was only able to get halfway through it…) But, at least in my memory, they still felt like Bond movies. Craig’s CR did not, and I understand that was the intention, but at the same time I wonder why even bother – if you’re doing something completely unrelated to what came before, it has become it’s own thing, and thus we’re back into Tom Cruise M:I territory, just riding on the name and theme song recognition.
One thing the progressivists always forget is these things go in cycles. It likely won’t happen with the Bond franchise, but one of these days some “visionary” is going to make something with an unrepentant alpha male-type and it won’t be treated as comedy, it will be done on the level, and it will do well, and Hollywood smelling the loot will churn out imitations, and a new cycle will begin. I predicted something similar back in the early ‘90s, when I was watching Hong Kong movies with “tough action chicks” in them, a la Heroic Trio. At the time, Hollywood wasn’t doing anything like that – I know because I looked. I figured it was only a matter of time, and look where we are today – they’re everywhere. Any US TV show about cops or Feds is guaranteed to have at least one female character who shoots better, runs faster, and hits harder than her male colleagues…
Anyway thanks again for all the responses and for reading my rambling comments.
Well... you should come back to this thread WHEN you've seen the Craig movies (all the way through and TWINE, for crying out loud, while you're at it).
It'll be interesting to see how much your opinion (if at all) has changed.
Wondering how you'll react to Bardem's character introduction (and what follows. Don't tell him who his character is or what he is, please.)
Well... you should come back to this thread WHEN you've seen the Craig movies (all the way through and TWINE, for crying out loud, while you're at it).
It'll be interesting to see how much your opinion (if at all) has changed.
Wondering how you'll react to Bardem's character introduction (and what follows. Don't tell him who his character is or what he is, please.)
I second this, you should atleast finish CR and watch Craig's other three films and see if it changes your current viewpoint or not. Then I think you'll be in a better position to critique the current era of Bond having seen all of it. You'll be able to pinpoint things more specifically rather then just painting broad strokes. You do have a lot of interesting points so I would be interested to read your thoughts after watching all the Craig films.
I also recommend watching everything before passing judgement. You need to see all of Casino Royale. The first half is just action filler before it gets to the actual Fleming story.
But whilst i'm at it...Art is always a reflection of culture. Bond is no different. Whilst Bond books and films have always been exaggerated entertainment, they still tapped into the culture of the time, which is one of the reasons why they were so successful. To say that Flemings Bond and the cinematic Bond was completely removed from the culture of the day is wrong.
Also regarding Moneypenny being played by a black actress. Typically white Western countries now have a more eclectic mix of races and cultures in them. To exclude those an maintain an all white cast would not be an accurate portrayal of the modern world, and it would alienate a large number of cinema going audiences world wide. Secondly Fleming was a product of his time. He grew up in a white culture. If he was around writing today his novels would be very different and I'm sure he wouldn't give a damn if Moneypenny was black.
On my blog I have a long-winded review of Kingsley Amis’s “The James Bond Dossier,” and in the comments thread I stumbled upon a similar realization as now – namely, that Amis’s wonderful book is basically a guideline as to what once made Bond so dangerous. It’s hard to believe now, but there was a time when Bond – literary and cinematic version – was considered dangerous, or at least a bad role model. The early books about Bond are all mostly apologies for Fleming’s creation, from Amis’s study to Boyd’s “The Devil With James Bond” (one of my favorites).
Totally agree, and those two books (which I bought and read at the time, in the 1960s- yes, I know how old that makes me- and have re-read many times since) are essential texts for anyone wishing to understand the literary Bond. In fact I agree with many of your points, but (nitpicking, I know)- M's secretary is called Moneypenny.
Digressing (or waffling on, as I'm prone to do)- the Miss Moneypenny character plays a minor role in Fleming, her main purpose being some mild flirtation with 007 on his way in or out of M's office. She does "dream hopelessly" about him, but that's about as far as it goes. The films have (quite correctly, in my view) expanded a bit on this but I would agree that in recent times (SF, SP) they've taken it too far. I believe that this parallels the expansion of M's role, and for the same reason: having M played by a name star capable of carrying a movie in their own right (Judi Dench and Ralph Fiennes have both done exactly that) tempts a writer, director or producer to use that name star for more than sitting behind a desk giving orders in the first 5 or 10 minutes of the movie. Naomie Harris is an excellent and capable (and extremely attractive) actress who a writer, director or producer- the repetition is because I don't know which!- would feel is wasted getting the two or three lines Lois Maxwell used to get back in the day.
No, Fleming would never have conceived of M as a woman or Moneypenny as black- in the fifties, that just wouldn't happen in the UK as Revolver66 said above. Times have changed, and the Bond films reflect those changes. They have to.
I have to admit I haven’t actually watched a Brosnan movie from beginning to end since DAD, when it was first released. (And I’ve never even seen TWINE.)
Add to that that you've only watched the first half of CR and nothing since, and the weight we should give to at least some of your opinions decreases. For example, there's a reason why Eve is portrayed initially as an "action girl" in SF: it's backstory, and the viewer is hopefully not going to realise who she really is until the end of the film.
Comments
I'm not quite sure what you expected in response?
You havnt really mentioned Spectre yet, what's your thoughts? Moneypenny is back behind a desk and it does have a different tone to DC's previous bond films.
All time. Even beating Mutiny on the Buses and
Confessions of a window cleaner.
That poor Harry Palmer, though...
In 1971 top 3 UK box office films: Get Carter, Diamonds Are Forever & On The Buses.
OTBs was #1 - taking twice as much as other 2 combined
Your quite right. It's interesting though. 1. Skyfall 2012 Daniel Craig $1,108,561,008
2. Thunderball 1965 Sean Connery $1,014,941,117
3. Goldfinger 1964 Sean Connery $912,257,512
4. Spectre 2015 Daniel Craig $880,669,186
5. Live and Let Die 1973 Roger Moore $825,110,761
6. You Only Live Twice 1967 Sean Connery $756,544,419
7. The Spy Who Loved Me 1977 Roger Moore $692,713,752
8. Casino Royale 2006 Daniel Craig $669,789,482
9. Moonraker 1979 Roger Moore $655,872,400
10. Diamonds Are Forever 1971 Sean Connery $648,514,469
11. Quantum of Solace 2008 Daniel Craig $622,246,378
12. From Russia with Love 1963 Sean Connery $576,277,964
13. Die Another Day 2002 Pierce Brosnan $543,639,638
14. Goldeneye 1995 Pierce Brosnan $529,548,711
15. On Her Majesty's Secret Service 1969 George Lazenby $505,899,782
16. The World is Not Enough 1999 Pierce Brosnan $491,617,153
17. For Your Eyes Only 1981 Roger Moore $486,468,881
18. Tomorrow Never Dies 1997 Pierce Brosnan $478,946,402
19. The Man with the Golden Gun 1974 Roger Moore $448,249,281
20. Dr. No 1962 Sean Connery $440,759,072
21. Octopussy 1983 Roger Moore $426,244,352
22. The Living Daylights 1987 Timothy Dalton $381,088,866
They need to make changes as Spectre wasn't a
Success
With bums on seats. ..... As they'll of had a drink
And will probably be up for a fight.
Written by our own Christopher Wood (as Timothy Lea) of course.
It was not a commercial failure by any means, critical and fan response was at very best mixed.More significantl for me was that none of the main players seemed enthused. I think SP coasted on Skyfall's success and momentum, but most importantly just was not up to snuff. Eon may have got away with it, but I can't imagine that anyone is particularly proud of it. 6 out of 10/ could do better rather than a fail in my book.
Posts. Which have claimed that Bond 25 will
Be filmed in America. Because after every
Failure, they film in the US
This I very much doubt as filming in the US
Has become very expensive, and many American
Fans don't think of the US as an exotic location.
Although, intellectually it may not be the best,
but it is show business, and being #4 on the list
Is a great achievement.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Know instinctively when something is Good and
Have no need to be told
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
On my blog I have a long-winded review of Kingsley Amis’s “The James Bond Dossier,” and in the comments thread I stumbled upon a similar realization as now – namely, that Amis’s wonderful book is basically a guideline as to what once made Bond so dangerous. It’s hard to believe now, but there was a time when Bond – literary and cinematic version – was considered dangerous, or at least a bad role model. The early books about Bond are all mostly apologies for Fleming’s creation, from Amis’s study to Boyd’s “The Devil With James Bond” (one of my favorites).
But what these early apologetic tomes teach us is that there was NEVER a time in which James Bond was considered just a typical representation of his era. Traveling around the world as a sort of government assassin, making quips, smoking incessant cigarettes, engaging in casual sex with exotic women, etc – this was, from the beginning, well apart from anyting that was considered a norm. Same goes for smacking a woman on the butt and telling her to shoo so the men can talk – contrary to revisionist opinion, men in those days generally treated women with respect (because they had, like, values and stuff back then).
So what I’m saying is, this concept of “changing Bond and his world to suit changing tastes” is a modern convention, as Bond was NEVER in accord with the tastes of his time.
Another realization I stumbled upon after reading Amis’s book is that this “bad influence” guideline STILL APPLIES – perhaps even more so now than in Fleming’s era. In particular Amis’s book should be used as a primer for any Bond continuation author; it’s almost a step-by-step guide on how to deliver a Bond story in all its pre-PC glory. However, it would appear that most of the modern Bond continuation authors are quite content in our progressivised era, and in fact want to bring their agenda into Bond’s world…which would be fine if they weren’t setting their books IN the Fleming era.
My issue (one of many, sadly) is that I’ve spent the past several years reading nothing but novels published in earlier times, in particular the ‘60s and ‘70s, and 95% of the movie’s I’ve watched are from that same era. So the result is I’m pretty steeped in what passed for commercial/genre fiction and films in those times, but really out of step with modern stuff. It’s inapppropriate to say this, even though it’s the truth, but this vintage pulp was almost exclusively written for and marketed to straight men – the idea of “broadening” the appeal is another modern convention. Given this, I think I can hazard a guess on how Fleming (or his widow, or even Amis) would feel about the reboot, with genders and races being changed for various characters – hell, if I’m not mistaken, Fleming’s widow railed against Amis writing a Bond novel, because she was afraid he’d imbue it with his leftist beliefs. Just imagine how these people would react to a female M or a black action-hero Moneypenny…
Speaking of which, I will admit when I’m wrong (despite what my wife claims), and I was wrong on the whole “black Moneypenny” thing, overlooking how Felix Leiter has changed ethnicities over the years – thanks to all of you who so happily pointed out my double standard there. I guess I didn’t even think of Felix because, at least to me, he’s not as much a staple Bond character as Miss M. is. And again, I bailed on the Craig flicks with CR, halfway through, so I am unaware of what’s happened in any of the ensuing films other than what I’ve seen in trailers or product-placement commercials. Here in the US at least one of the latter prominently featured the reboot Monneypenny, running around and driving a motorcycle and in general doing all the posturing which is demanded of “touch action chicks” in today’s entertainment, and if anything it just annoyed me – to be clear, it’s the “action babe” cliché I’m sick of, not so much the whole race thing, but as others have pointed out it sounds like this whole action makeover was a temporary thing for Monneypenny. But to me, an attractive lady running around in a leather catsuit and acting tough – black, white, or whatever – isn’t what I think of when I think “James Bond,” at least when the lady in question is supposed to be Monneypenny. I mean, Jinx, Wai Lin, or my favorites Fiona Volpe and Fatima Bush, that’s fine – they’re their own characters. They aren’t Monneypenny.
I realize a lot of this revisionism started in the Brosnan era, and I have to admit I haven’t actually watched a Brosnan movie from beginning to end since DAD, when it was first released. (And I’ve never even seen TWINE.) So my memories of his movies are filtered through a decade or two of hazy memories. (I bought the entire series on Blu Ray at a pittance the other year, but when I tried to watch GE I was only able to get halfway through it…) But, at least in my memory, they still felt like Bond movies. Craig’s CR did not, and I understand that was the intention, but at the same time I wonder why even bother – if you’re doing something completely unrelated to what came before, it has become it’s own thing, and thus we’re back into Tom Cruise M:I territory, just riding on the name and theme song recognition.
One thing the progressivists always forget is these things go in cycles. It likely won’t happen with the Bond franchise, but one of these days some “visionary” is going to make something with an unrepentant alpha male-type and it won’t be treated as comedy, it will be done on the level, and it will do well, and Hollywood smelling the loot will churn out imitations, and a new cycle will begin. I predicted something similar back in the early ‘90s, when I was watching Hong Kong movies with “tough action chicks” in them, a la Heroic Trio. At the time, Hollywood wasn’t doing anything like that – I know because I looked. I figured it was only a matter of time, and look where we are today – they’re everywhere. Any US TV show about cops or Feds is guaranteed to have at least one female character who shoots better, runs faster, and hits harder than her male colleagues…
Anyway thanks again for all the responses and for reading my rambling comments.
It'll be interesting to see how much your opinion (if at all) has changed.
Wondering how you'll react to Bardem's character introduction (and what follows. Don't tell him who his character is or what he is, please.)
Also regarding Moneypenny being played by a black actress. Typically white Western countries now have a more eclectic mix of races and cultures in them. To exclude those an maintain an all white cast would not be an accurate portrayal of the modern world, and it would alienate a large number of cinema going audiences world wide. Secondly Fleming was a product of his time. He grew up in a white culture. If he was around writing today his novels would be very different and I'm sure he wouldn't give a damn if Moneypenny was black.
No-one did: read it again.
Totally agree, and those two books (which I bought and read at the time, in the 1960s- yes, I know how old that makes me- and have re-read many times since) are essential texts for anyone wishing to understand the literary Bond. In fact I agree with many of your points, but (nitpicking, I know)- M's secretary is called Moneypenny.
Digressing (or waffling on, as I'm prone to do)- the Miss Moneypenny character plays a minor role in Fleming, her main purpose being some mild flirtation with 007 on his way in or out of M's office. She does "dream hopelessly" about him, but that's about as far as it goes. The films have (quite correctly, in my view) expanded a bit on this but I would agree that in recent times (SF, SP) they've taken it too far. I believe that this parallels the expansion of M's role, and for the same reason: having M played by a name star capable of carrying a movie in their own right (Judi Dench and Ralph Fiennes have both done exactly that) tempts a writer, director or producer to use that name star for more than sitting behind a desk giving orders in the first 5 or 10 minutes of the movie. Naomie Harris is an excellent and capable (and extremely attractive) actress who a writer, director or producer- the repetition is because I don't know which!- would feel is wasted getting the two or three lines Lois Maxwell used to get back in the day.
No, Fleming would never have conceived of M as a woman or Moneypenny as black- in the fifties, that just wouldn't happen in the UK as Revolver66 said above. Times have changed, and the Bond films reflect those changes. They have to.
Add to that that you've only watched the first half of CR and nothing since, and the weight we should give to at least some of your opinions decreases. For example, there's a reason why Eve is portrayed initially as an "action girl" in SF: it's backstory, and the viewer is hopefully not going to realise who she really is until the end of the film.