There'll be gadgets (and there were in CR: a phone with a tracker/scanner built in, hidden gadget drawer in car) I'm sure, but hopefully not as silly as they were. On perhaps a level with Living Daylights (not including the car) would be fine for me. If CR was 'unBondian' in its amount of gadgets I'd hate to know what OHMSS or even AVTAK were!
If you are willing to see a return to the style of gadgets in TLD (Ghetto Blaster, Key Ring Finder) then I think we may be reaching some common ground!
The ghetto blaster was a gag rather than a proper gadget, but the key ring finder was perfect; best Bond gadget in 20 years I'd say. Clever, original, not far-fetched and well set-up for the film. And the only big gadget he needed in the film.
AVTAK had plenty of gadgets: Snooper, sunglasses, ring camera, electronic shaver/bug detector/tape recorder, etc.
All throwaway gadgets used in pretty much one scene, though- he didn't have a one big gadget set up at the start which we knew would save his life in the last half of the film.
Throwaway gadgets are fun as long as they make us go 'that's cool- I want one' and not groan because it's so convenient as to make him look overly smug or so far-fetched. I want to see them back, but only if they're clever and stylish enough.
Gadgets were hard to come by in OHMSS other than the radioactive lint and the copy machine, however in this film, like Dan said, Q is still a character and all other Bondian elements are upheld.
And what was CR? What was missing that made it 'un-Bondian'? A funny scene in an office with Moneypenny? Is that it? We've survived without Q a few times, so it can't be that. Black hair?
Personally I look forward to the Q scene(s) because I enjoy the badgering relationship between Bond and Q. I also like to see the latest bizarre gadgets that Q Branch is working on.
We've rather done that now, though haven't we? After 40 years of the same old scene recycled, I think it's time for a new fresh approach. And let's not forget this scene has been ripped off so many times by other movies (even Alias was doing it I saw) Bond would look somewhat stale even if it did come up with it first: its time has passed.
Receiving the gadgets in an envelope at the hotel reception may be fine for you, but it certainly does not meet with my expectations.
Yes, I was perfectly happy for a scene which didn't stop the flow of the movie, worked tonally and gave room for some subtle, witty humour. It was designed for this Bond movie in 2006, not one made 40 years ago with a completely different tone. Make a suit from spare parts and it'll look awful, make a bespoke one with specially designed and cut pieces of fabric and you stand more chance of having a fine outfit.
Future films, starting with Bond 22, will see more of the traditional elements -- gadgetry, MI6 interactions, music, etc. Included in this is the Q character, and while I don't see Cleese returning (too old) I can definitely see Q back in the fold.
Well obviously the relationship between Bond and M will be closely followed in Craig’s future films. The Bond Theme will also make a triumphant return considering Bond is finally “Bond.” 8-) If they do introduce a Q character he will be used in the usual reboot fashion and meet 007 for the first time. For all we know Q could be a 10 year old computer geek because the past forty years no longer matter. We can change the story. If they do introduce gadgets, they will be nothing like we’re used to in the past. They will be completely practical and devoid of the slightest bit of humor.
These "new Bond fans" aren't really fans of the series if all they like is CR. They will be fickle, and the long-standing base will eventually become bored if the old elements are completely lost.
These “new Bond fans” don’t have to be fans of the series because this is a “separate series.” Look, the idea of a “real” Bond with none of the usual silliness (gadgets) has brought thousands of people to the theatre. And they are eating it up! The long-standing base is too and many don’t want to see a return to the more traditional Bond. “If you want to see Moneypenny and Q, go watch one of the first 20,” is what one member has said. Unfortunately we live in a time where Jason Bourne has defined what we now expect in a spy film. We can’t clown around anymore. The Bond films have sadly lost their identity. And since the public approves of the direction the series is going, that is what the producers are going to give them.
Tee Hee, what has happened to you? Are you miffed at having to return to Iowa City for second semester? I miss the carefree answerer of trivia questions and poster of quips.
I was trying to boost your spirits, not trample them. Please tell me that one Bond film has not dispirited you to the point of such pessimism.
Well obviously the relationship between Bond and M will be closely followed in Craig’s future films. The Bond Theme will also make a triumphant return considering Bond is finally “Bond.” 8-) If they do introduce a Q character he will be used in the usual reboot fashion and meet 007 for the first time. For all we know Q could be a 10 year old computer geek because the past forty years no longer matter. We can change the story. If they do introduce gadgets, they will be nothing like we’re used to in the past. They will be completely practical and devoid of the slightest bit of humor.
Agree with all you say (although I'm still not sure why Q needs to be a particular person). Not sure why you say the gadgets won't have any humour- bit early to work that out. But then I struggle to think what was funny about his silly ring thing, bomb watches, rappel belt etc. Only the cars have been funny recently, really.
These "new Bond fans" aren't really fans of the series if all they like is CR. They will be fickle, and the long-standing base will eventually become bored if the old elements are completely lost.
These “new Bond fans” don’t have to be fans of the series because this is a “separate series.” Look, the idea of a “real” Bond with none of the usual silliness (gadgets) has brought thousands of people to the theatre. And they are eating it up! The long-standing base is too and many don’t want to see a return to the more traditional Bond. “If you want to see Moneypenny and Q, go watch one of the first 20,” is what one member has said. Unfortunately we live in a time where Jason Bourne has defined what we now expect in a spy film. We can’t clown around anymore. The Bond films have sadly lost their identity. And since the public approves of the direction the series is going, that is what the producers are going to give them.
Odd- I entirely agree with what you're saying and then you drop the word 'sadly' in as if the situation you describe is bad!
The Bond films have now lost their identity as flabby old campy nonsense films with confused ideas as to what they want to be with an ageing pretty star, and have gained a new one as exciting character pieces with a true sense of direction and award-nominated cast and crew. That's an identity they can afford to lose, I feel.
Tee HeeCBT Headquarters: Chicago, ILPosts: 917MI6 Agent
Odd- I entirely agree with what you're saying and then you drop the word 'sadly' in as if the situation you describe is bad! The Bond films have now lost their identity as flabby old campy nonsense films with confused ideas.
It is a sad state of affairs. I'm surprised you can hold the first 20 films in this regard and still be a fan. ?:)
Tee Hee, what has happened to you? Are you miffed at having to return to Iowa City for second semester? I miss the carefree answerer of trivia questions and poster of quips.
I was trying to boost your spirits, not trample them. Please tell me that one Bond film has not dispirited you to the point of such pessimism.
Come back to us!
Sir Hillary my dear friend I am still the same person, however the triva challenge forum isn't what it used to be. It gets pretty lonely in there so I have to come out occasionally for some member interaction. For most of my time here I have almost secluded myself in the trivia challenge forum, but it has been a goal of mine for some time to become more of a well-rounded participator here. I guess you can say I am "rebooting" myself. Hey if Bond can, why can't I?
I still have a passion for Bond trivia and my bag of quips is far from empty. I appreciate you trying to raise my spirits, but they just simply can't be helped. Don't get me wrong, Daniel Craig was a great Bond and the film was enjoyable, however I don't agree with the direction the series has taken. I can only assume at this point that the blatant disregard for prior Bond history will only continue. For me the series can only take more steps in the wrong direction. It's not that I'm pessimistic, I just have no optimism that the current situation will get better. Optimism, "they've (Babs and Michael) stripped it from me." )
Yes a new semester has started (I'm actually no longer at Iowa - long story) and I'm not in the best of moods to be getting back to work after the refreshing Christmas break, but I assure you that has nothing to do with my recent metamorphasis.
"Hey it's the new Tee Hee!"
)
"My acting range? Left eyebrow raised, right eyebrow raised..."
How convinient. Are you sure it's not just because you've had so long to get used to the fact that it's a Bond film? I mean, if LALD came out today, with all of its deviations from the formula, wouldn't you be complaining about that too? You can say 'but it wasn't a reboot' 'till you're blue in the face, but today's 'reboot' is yesterday's 'no dinner suit/shaken not stirred/no MI6/no Q' etc. In ten years time do you honestly think the new fans your age will be complaining about the reboot in CR?
I don't care about the other fans my age. I am only stating my opinion. You know, you say things like 'how convenient' as if I'm in a court of law. But I'm not. This is my opinion; agree with it or not, that is the way it is. Similarly, the reasons for my opinions are are also the way they are. I don't have as much of a problem with LALD because it's not a reboot; you may not understand that, but that is the reason. The fact that CR is a reboot is a a major problem for me; LALD and OHMSS do not have this problem. Also, do't worry about me mentioning that till I'm blue in the face, becasue I'm not going to be mentioning that again. The fact remains that in my view, a reboot is much lesser than the formula, and I will never accept CR in the same way I accept other Bond films which follow the formula.
A Bond film should deliver on what the brand promises; a globe-trotting, glamorous, sexy exciting spy adventure with laughs, style and genuine wit and invention. Not 'one scene involving a high fall; surreal titles with bare ladies; scene in M's office [serious]; scene in Q's lab [funny]..etc.' - where's the wit or intelligence in that?
The wit or intelligence comes from how the film delivers on all of these things. Some films do it better. Plus, I never said that a film has to deliever on every single aspect of the formula; ther are simply certain major aspects which I would expect every film to have.
Die Another Day followed the formula of which you speak (namely getting bogged down with the details of exact scenes and characters, and forgetting what the whole effect was) and it was crap.
It is to Goldfinger what a copy of the Mona Lisa which strives to exactly copy the shape down to the nth degree is to the original: it forgets to put any life and spirit into the whole- failing to stand back and look at the whole picture and worrying about the tiny details (as if they make the end product) can only cause a ruin.
True DAD was terrible, but TSWLM (a perfect example of a 'formula' film) was argubaly brilliant and was IMO the greatest non-Connery Bond film of all time. Perhaps you didn't read my previous 1000 posts on this subject; I have never said that the best Bond films follow the formula perfectly; rather the best Bond films play with the fromula in a creative, original and interesting way. Nonetheless they must follow the formula. Anyway, that is why I consider TSWLM to be a superb film (because it brilliantly showcased the fromula IMO) while AVTAK is my least favourite Bond film (because everyhing orignal and interesting about it came from GF.) As it happens, I think that TSWLM isa terrific film full stop, but if I want to watch a great film, I might watch The Godfather, and if I want to watch a Bond film I'll watch somethimg like TSWLM. The reason that I would watch a Bond film (other than for Bond himself) is the formula.
Wow, you really have become spiteful lately. First you sneer at me whilst accusing me of sneering at a film), you refuse to even accept that I could have a different opinion to you and now you're referring to something that I said which was in response to you) as pathetic. 8-)
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Odd- I entirely agree with what you're saying and then you drop the word 'sadly' in as if the situation you describe is bad! The Bond films have now lost their identity as flabby old campy nonsense films with confused ideas.
It is a sad state of affairs. I'm surprised you can hold the first 20 films in this regard and still be a fan. ?:)
They were great for their time. The last few Brosnan films saw them try to live beyond their time and the series was looking bad. I don't see why that would surprise you.
Oh, give me a break. 8-) Unless you are fully aware of what goes on in my discussions with certain members of this board, I would appreciate it if you could such comments to yourself.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
If you don't know what it is, how can you think it didn't follow it? What does that sentence mean?
Well, what does it mean when you say that a film follows the 'true' formula perfectly? You didn't define the 'true' formula. When I think of what I imagine to be the 'true' formula, CR is not particularly faithful to it.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
How convinient. Are you sure it's not just because you've had so long to get used to the fact that it's a Bond film? I mean, if LALD came out today, with all of its deviations from the formula, wouldn't you be complaining about that too? You can say 'but it wasn't a reboot' 'till you're blue in the face, but today's 'reboot' is yesterday's 'no dinner suit/shaken not stirred/no MI6/no Q' etc. In ten years time do you honestly think the new fans your age will be complaining about the reboot in CR?
I don't care about the other fans my age. I am only stating my opinion. You know, you say things like 'how convenient' as if I'm in a court of law. But I'm not. This is my opinion; agree with it or not, that is the way it is. Similarly, the reasons for my opinions are are also the way they are. I don't have as much of a problem with LALD because it's not a reboot; you may not understand that, but that is the reason. The fact that CR is a reboot is a a major problem for me; LALD and OHMSS do not have this problem. Also, do't worry about me mentioning that till I'm blue in the face, becasue I'm not going to be mentioning that again. The fact remains that in my view, a reboot is much lesser than the formula, and I will never accept CR in the same way I accept other Bond films which follow the formula.
Okay. My point was, how about if you were living in 1973 and had never heard the word 'reboot'. Would all the changes in LALD have had you wailing too? But now, in retrospect, they really don't look so bad or noticable. So, the rather soft reboot in CR (which has changed very little, and next to all the other changes and inconsistancies in the series over the years) doesn't really stand out except right here, right now.
My point is- the reboot isn't a major change, it doesn't stop the film delivering what Bond films always did- it actually allows for it to give us more. If you were enjoying the Bond films because occasionally someone said the word 'Tracy' rather than for the excitment, style and wit, then you're not who the producers are making these films for so you can't really complain to them.
If you don't know what it is, how can you think it didn't follow it? What does that sentence mean?
Well, what does it mean when you say that a film follows the 'true' formula perfectly? You didn't define the 'true' formula. When I think of what I imagine to be the 'true' formula, CR is not particularly faithful to it.
In your oft-repeated words Dan; 'read my post'. I described entirely what I was talking about with the words 'the films should deliver what the Bond brand promises' and then I described exactly that. But you didn't bother with that bit.
Okay. My point was, how about if you were living in 1973 and had never heard the word 'reboot'. Would all the changes in LALD have had you wailing too? But now, in retrospect, they really don't look so bad or noticable. So, the rather soft reboot in CR (which has changed very little, and next to all the other changes and inconsistancies in the series over the years) doesn't really stand out except right here, right now.
It does stand out to me. The problem is, (soft or not), CR is a reboot. There is simply no comparison between CR and LALD, or any other Bond film. For one thing LALD featured an experienced James Bond with an established history. I can believe, for example, that the Bond in LALD was a widower. It basically comes down to the continuity, which like the reboot, is something that one either believes in or not or likes or not. Now I happen to believe that there is a (limited) continuity and I also dislike the reboot; mainly because it rejects that continuity. That is why I can forgive LALD for alot more things than I can forgive CR for.
My point is- the reboot isn't a major change, it doesn't stop the film delivering what Bond films always did- it actually allows for it to give us more.
Look, my world isn't going to come to an end, but for me, it is a major change. One of my big problems with CR is not only the fact that it is a reboot (and an incomplete one at that) but I don't see the reason for that. Like Tee Hee said in another thread, I don't see why a veteran Bond couldn't have done CR. Yes, his falling in love with Vesper wouldn't have made him who he is, but not only would that be a good thing IMO, but I don't think that Bond's falling in love with Vesper really affected him all that much anyway. My point is that the reboot is one of my biggest problems with CR. I am undoubtfully a minority on this, but the reboot (both the idea of it and its pratical implications) is a major reason why CR is unlikely to ever be one of my favourite Bond films.
If you were enjoying the Bond films because occasionally someone said the word 'Tracy' rather than for the excitment, style and wit, then you're not who the producers are making these films for so you can't really complain to them.
I did enjoy them for the excitment, style and wit. However I also liked it that there was IMO a kind of continuity; I can believe that Brosnan's Bond was married to Tracey. But obviously I can not believe that about Craig.
I'm also not complaining to the producers. I'm expressing my thoughts on a website. What you're saying is 'either accept it or shut up because the producers don't care what you think.' Well, of course they don't but I have never deluded myself that they do.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Oh, give me a break. 8-) Unless you are fully aware of what goes on in my discussions with certain members of this board, I would appreciate it if you could such comments to yourself.
Dan, perhaps if you compare how long we've been posting for you'll see that I joined almost five years ago.
Look, my world isn't going to come to an end, but for me, it is a major change. One of my big problems with CR is not only the fact that it is a reboot (and an incomplete one at that) but I don't see the reason for that. Like Tee Hee said in another thread, I don't see why a veteran Bond couldn't have done CR. Yes, his falling in love with Vesper wouldn't have made him who he is, but not only would that be a good thing IMO, but I don't think that Bond's falling in love with Vesper really affected him all that much anyway. My point is that the reboot is one of my biggest problems with CR. I am undoubtfully a minority on this, but the reboot (both the idea of it and its pratical implications) is a major reason why CR is unlikely to ever be one of my favourite Bond films.
If you were enjoying the Bond films because occasionally someone said the word 'Tracy' rather than for the excitment, style and wit, then you're not who the producers are making these films for so you can't really complain to them.
I did enjoy them for the excitment, style and wit. However I also liked it that there was IMO a kind of continuity; I can believe that Brosnan's Bond was married to Tracey. But obviously I can not believe that about Craig.
To be honest, IMO the Bond series, if it carrys on with your formula, which can only last a few movies, as to why it has, will get very tired and boring.
The bond films needed the pump up that CR gives it. CR IMO is a movie that I always think about and none of it is forgettable.
Im glad that EON did this, they made the right choice.
Im tired of the GF, YOLT, MR, TND & DAD Bond movies, and these all have the perfect forumla that you refer to.
This is the most successful Bond and I can see why. Its back to the fantasy of SC bonds, but IMO it tops them with no chalenge.
The bond films needed the pump up that CR gives it. CR IMO is a movie that I always think about and none of it is forgettable.
Im glad that EON did this, they made the right choice.
Im tired of the GF, YOLT, MR, TND & DAD Bond movies, and these all have the perfect forumla that you refer to.
This is the most successful Bond and I can see why. Its back to the fantasy of SC bonds, but IMO it tops them with no chalenge.
After DAD, I think it was evident to just about everyone that changes were required. I was hoping for something along the lines of FYEO after MR. Babs & Mickey thought something more radical was required and have been proven right with the critical and commercial success of Casino Royale.
As for CR being the most successful Bond? In critical terms it's certainly a contender but in commercial terms it is certainly not a contender. Inflation adjusted, TB is the most successful followed by GF.
The question now is what does Eon do from here. Do they just flat out return to the old formula, stick to the new formula (not that it's that much different), or have a mix of the old and the new? I anticipate a mix of the old and new. For example, I wouldn't be surprised to see either Q or Moneypenny (or both) in Bond 22. Also, the gunbarrel will likely return to it's more traditional place.
As for being tired of the previous twenty films and their "perfect formula"? I never tire of any of them in their entirety, though it has to be said there are certain sequences in a few of them that I very rarely watch because they are either too poor or too cringeworthy. Examples, the second half of TND, the Jaws/Dolly romance in MR.
The bond films needed the pump up that CR gives it. CR IMO is a movie that I always think about and none of it is forgettable.
Im glad that EON did this, they made the right choice.
Im tired of the GF, YOLT, MR, TND & DAD Bond movies, and these all have the perfect forumla that you refer to.
This is the most successful Bond and I can see why. Its back to the fantasy of SC bonds, but IMO it tops them with no chalenge.
After DAD, I think it was evident to just about everyone that changes were required. I was hoping for something along the lines of FYEO after MR. Babs & Mickey thought something more radical was required and have been proven right with the critical and commercial success of Casino Royale.
As for CR being the most successful Bond? In critical terms it's certainly a contender but in commercial terms it is certainly not a contender. Inflation adjusted, TB is the most successful followed by GF.
The question now is what does Eon do from here. Do they just flat out return to the old formula, stick to the new formula (not that it's that much different), or have a mix of the old and the new? I anticipate a mix of the old and new. For example, I wouldn't be surprised to see either Q or Moneypenny (or both) in Bond 22. Also, the gunbarrel will likely return to it's more traditional place.
As for being tired of the previous twenty films and their "perfect formula"? I never tire of any of them in their entirety, though it has to be said there are certain sequences in a few of them that I very rarely watch because they are either too poor or too cringeworthy. Examples, the second half of TND, the Jaws/Dolly romance in MR.
Yes thats what I meant, im not tired of THOSE movies, but if new movies were made following that exact formula it would get rather tired.
Dan, perhaps if you compare how long we've been posting for you'll see that I joined almost five years ago.
It's not how long you have been posting. It's about curtesy. If you were involved in a discussion with another member, I would never post with something like 'Oh Taity, you're in one of your moods again ' There are times in which it is tempting for me to write such a post (not just about you but some other members as well) but I don't think it's a perticularly constructive thing to say. I guess, we have different views on posting.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Perhaps Dan, it could be said that you should restrict your comments to the relevent thread. For example, this thread has turned into views on CR. It however asks if John Cleese should return in Bond 22.
Perhaps Dan, it could be said that you should restrict your comments to the relevent thread. For example, this thread has turned into views on CR. It however asks if John Cleese should return in Bond 22.
Oh, not more of this. You made a personal comment about me which wasn't at all appreciated, and now you're criticising me for discussing CR (which, not that it matters, is very much to do with this thread.)
Taity, I don't need you to give me 'advice' on what topics I should restrict myself to and nor do I need you to make personal comments to me like the one that started this. I wouldn't do it to you and I would appreciate that you not do it to me. If you can not do this, then perhaps you could just not respond to me?
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Perhaps Dan, it could be said that you should restrict your comments to the relevent thread. For example, this thread has turned into views on CR. It however asks if John Cleese should return in Bond 22.
Oh, not more of this. You made a personal comment about me which wasn't at all appreciated, and now you're criticising me for discussing CR (which, not that it matters, is very much to do with this thread.)
Taity, I don't need you to give me 'advice' on what topics I should restrict myself to and nor do I need you to make personal comments to me like the one that started this. I wouldn't do it to you and I would appreciate that you not do it to me. If you can not do this, then perhaps you could just not respond to me?
Im tired of the GF, YOLT, MR, TND & DAD Bond movies, and these all have the perfect forumla that you refer to.
I can't say I'm too thrilled that you're grouping GF and (to a lesser extent) YOLT in with MR, TND and (especially) DAD. Drax, IMO there is really no such thing as a perfect formula because what makes a film so great is how it utilises the formula, rather than how accurate it is. IMO GF and TSWLM utilised the formula to perfection while TND and DAD did not.
The formula is a major reason why I watch Bond. That is a major reason (not the only reason, but a major one) as to why I don't love CR; I don't believe that it followed the formula, either accurately or perfectly. I have to say though, I'm really explaining why I didn't love CR; not why I didn't like it. I liked it alot and it is definitely among my 13 favourite Bond films. -{
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
There were times in CR, like when Bond does his investigation thing around the country club and Solange etc when I did think, hmmm, this is just like any Pierce Brosnan film. And that Brozzer could have been doing it, but then the similarity would be too obvious - a different looking actor makes it less so. But the Miami action was out of Brozzer's league imo.
As for the reboot, I can't see Brozzer falling for Vesper much though I take DS's point on this, but I think CR only really could be done as a coming of age flick for our hero, or the producers were not that interested in it as a plot.
Err...anyway, about John Cleese as Q in the next movie. It might seem a bit confusing, this being a reboot of Bond and all. I didn't mind Dame Judi, because she's just wonderful to watch, but bringing back Cleese might be a bit much. I'd prefer a new actor.
Formula is one reason why I watched Bond, but as I got older I began enjoying the Bonds that we're a little different, like TWINE, FYEO, CR, OHMSS etc.
I can see why you enjoy GF, its a great JB movie, but it doesnt really provoke me into thought, some could argue films shoudlnt, but I enjoy my films that way.....
CR certainly provoked a three dimesional thought towards a Bond films, like the novels.
Tee HeeCBT Headquarters: Chicago, ILPosts: 917MI6 Agent
Let me revive this thread with a section of an article I read at CBN (Don't worry I'm not a member, I just go there for the latest Bond news ) Looks as if my forecast may be correct afterall.
*No real spoilers*
The absense of Q and Miss Moneypenny from Casino Royale sparked much discussion amongst 007 fans. Wade commented on this, saying: ‘Some people think they should be there and some people know that they shouldn’t be there. With the way Casino Royale ends, you know there’s still unfinished business for Bond. He may say, “The name’s Bond, James Bond,” but there’s still a lot of stuff churning up inside him. So, if you’re going to explore that, and we’ve got this great actor to do that with, what you don’t want to do is suddenly clamp it down with all these familiar elements that keep your focus off him. He’s the great asset.’
According to Purvis, Moneypenny would be the easier of the two to incorporate. ‘Q presents more problems. People have all got gadgets now. Other films have lots of gadgets as well… The idea of Q coming back, for the moment, it’s just not a high priority.’
And you guys want me to be optimistic...
"My acting range? Left eyebrow raised, right eyebrow raised..."
I think what Wade said is really just an unimaginative viewpoint to take as a writer. He's basically saying that he is unable to visualize Q as anything other than what was previously portrayed. This is a reboot, right? Let's flesh out some of these relationships. Boothroyd was originally introduced as the Armourer in DN, merely equipping Bond with a new gun. It would be simple to use Boothroyd (don't even mention the name Q) as a character which takes a lot of guff from Bond and begins to develop a love/hate relationship with him. C'mon - be a writer. Don't use Q as a plot device, use him as a character for a change.
I think what Wade said is really just an unimaginative viewpoint to take as a writer. He's basically saying that he is unable to visualize Q as anything other than what was previously portrayed. This is a reboot, right? Let's flesh out some of these relationships. Boothroyd was originally introduced as the Armourer in DN, merely equipping Bond with a new gun. It would be simple to use Boothroyd (don't even mention the name Q) as a character which takes a lot of guff from Bond and begins to develop a love/hate relationship with him. C'mon - be a writer. Don't use Q as a plot device, use him as a character for a change.
I think what Wade said is really just an unimaginative viewpoint to take as a writer. He's basically saying that he is unable to visualize Q as anything other than what was previously portrayed. This is a reboot, right? Let's flesh out some of these relationships. Boothroyd was originally introduced as the Armourer in DN, merely equipping Bond with a new gun. It would be simple to use Boothroyd (don't even mention the name Q) as a character which takes a lot of guff from Bond and begins to develop a love/hate relationship with him. C'mon - be a writer. Don't use Q as a plot device, use him as a character for a change.
That's true. Personally, I have no problem with the way Q has traditionally been used (I love the way he has been used) but if the filmmakers have too much of a problem with it, then surely they can find a way to utilise him creatively.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Comments
The ghetto blaster was a gag rather than a proper gadget, but the key ring finder was perfect; best Bond gadget in 20 years I'd say. Clever, original, not far-fetched and well set-up for the film. And the only big gadget he needed in the film.
All throwaway gadgets used in pretty much one scene, though- he didn't have a one big gadget set up at the start which we knew would save his life in the last half of the film.
Throwaway gadgets are fun as long as they make us go 'that's cool- I want one' and not groan because it's so convenient as to make him look overly smug or so far-fetched. I want to see them back, but only if they're clever and stylish enough.
And what was CR? What was missing that made it 'un-Bondian'? A funny scene in an office with Moneypenny? Is that it? We've survived without Q a few times, so it can't be that. Black hair?
We've rather done that now, though haven't we? After 40 years of the same old scene recycled, I think it's time for a new fresh approach. And let's not forget this scene has been ripped off so many times by other movies (even Alias was doing it I saw) Bond would look somewhat stale even if it did come up with it first: its time has passed.
Yes, I was perfectly happy for a scene which didn't stop the flow of the movie, worked tonally and gave room for some subtle, witty humour. It was designed for this Bond movie in 2006, not one made 40 years ago with a completely different tone. Make a suit from spare parts and it'll look awful, make a bespoke one with specially designed and cut pieces of fabric and you stand more chance of having a fine outfit.
Tee Hee, what has happened to you? Are you miffed at having to return to Iowa City for second semester? I miss the carefree answerer of trivia questions and poster of quips.
I was trying to boost your spirits, not trample them. Please tell me that one Bond film has not dispirited you to the point of such pessimism.
Come back to us!
Agree with all you say (although I'm still not sure why Q needs to be a particular person). Not sure why you say the gadgets won't have any humour- bit early to work that out. But then I struggle to think what was funny about his silly ring thing, bomb watches, rappel belt etc. Only the cars have been funny recently, really.
Odd- I entirely agree with what you're saying and then you drop the word 'sadly' in as if the situation you describe is bad!
The Bond films have now lost their identity as flabby old campy nonsense films with confused ideas as to what they want to be with an ageing pretty star, and have gained a new one as exciting character pieces with a true sense of direction and award-nominated cast and crew. That's an identity they can afford to lose, I feel.
It is a sad state of affairs. I'm surprised you can hold the first 20 films in this regard and still be a fan. ?:)
Sir Hillary my dear friend I am still the same person, however the triva challenge forum isn't what it used to be. It gets pretty lonely in there so I have to come out occasionally for some member interaction. For most of my time here I have almost secluded myself in the trivia challenge forum, but it has been a goal of mine for some time to become more of a well-rounded participator here. I guess you can say I am "rebooting" myself. Hey if Bond can, why can't I?
I still have a passion for Bond trivia and my bag of quips is far from empty. I appreciate you trying to raise my spirits, but they just simply can't be helped. Don't get me wrong, Daniel Craig was a great Bond and the film was enjoyable, however I don't agree with the direction the series has taken. I can only assume at this point that the blatant disregard for prior Bond history will only continue. For me the series can only take more steps in the wrong direction. It's not that I'm pessimistic, I just have no optimism that the current situation will get better. Optimism, "they've (Babs and Michael) stripped it from me."
Yes a new semester has started (I'm actually no longer at Iowa - long story) and I'm not in the best of moods to be getting back to work after the refreshing Christmas break, but I assure you that has nothing to do with my recent metamorphasis.
"Hey it's the new Tee Hee!"
-Roger Moore
Maybe I disagree.
The wit or intelligence comes from how the film delivers on all of these things. Some films do it better. Plus, I never said that a film has to deliever on every single aspect of the formula; ther are simply certain major aspects which I would expect every film to have.
Mind if I disagree with that? I don't think that CR followed the 'true' formula (whatever that is) and I don't think it did it perfectly at all.
True DAD was terrible, but TSWLM (a perfect example of a 'formula' film) was argubaly brilliant and was IMO the greatest non-Connery Bond film of all time. Perhaps you didn't read my previous 1000 posts on this subject; I have never said that the best Bond films follow the formula perfectly; rather the best Bond films play with the fromula in a creative, original and interesting way. Nonetheless they must follow the formula. Anyway, that is why I consider TSWLM to be a superb film (because it brilliantly showcased the fromula IMO) while AVTAK is my least favourite Bond film (because everyhing orignal and interesting about it came from GF.) As it happens, I think that TSWLM isa terrific film full stop, but if I want to watch a great film, I might watch The Godfather, and if I want to watch a Bond film I'll watch somethimg like TSWLM. The reason that I would watch a Bond film (other than for Bond himself) is the formula.
Wow, you really have become spiteful lately. First you sneer at me whilst accusing me of sneering at a film), you refuse to even accept that I could have a different opinion to you and now you're referring to something that I said which was in response to you) as pathetic. 8-)
They were great for their time. The last few Brosnan films saw them try to live beyond their time and the series was looking bad. I don't see why that would surprise you.
If you don't know what it is, how can you think it didn't follow it? What does that sentence mean?
Okay. My point was, how about if you were living in 1973 and had never heard the word 'reboot'. Would all the changes in LALD have had you wailing too? But now, in retrospect, they really don't look so bad or noticable. So, the rather soft reboot in CR (which has changed very little, and next to all the other changes and inconsistancies in the series over the years) doesn't really stand out except right here, right now.
My point is- the reboot isn't a major change, it doesn't stop the film delivering what Bond films always did- it actually allows for it to give us more. If you were enjoying the Bond films because occasionally someone said the word 'Tracy' rather than for the excitment, style and wit, then you're not who the producers are making these films for so you can't really complain to them.
In your oft-repeated words Dan; 'read my post'. I described entirely what I was talking about with the words 'the films should deliver what the Bond brand promises' and then I described exactly that. But you didn't bother with that bit.
Feel free to say what you think the 'formula' is.
Look, my world isn't going to come to an end, but for me, it is a major change. One of my big problems with CR is not only the fact that it is a reboot (and an incomplete one at that) but I don't see the reason for that. Like Tee Hee said in another thread, I don't see why a veteran Bond couldn't have done CR. Yes, his falling in love with Vesper wouldn't have made him who he is, but not only would that be a good thing IMO, but I don't think that Bond's falling in love with Vesper really affected him all that much anyway. My point is that the reboot is one of my biggest problems with CR. I am undoubtfully a minority on this, but the reboot (both the idea of it and its pratical implications) is a major reason why CR is unlikely to ever be one of my favourite Bond films.
I did enjoy them for the excitment, style and wit. However I also liked it that there was IMO a kind of continuity; I can believe that Brosnan's Bond was married to Tracey. But obviously I can not believe that about Craig.
I'm also not complaining to the producers. I'm expressing my thoughts on a website. What you're saying is 'either accept it or shut up because the producers don't care what you think.' Well, of course they don't but I have never deluded myself that they do.
Dan, perhaps if you compare how long we've been posting for you'll see that I joined almost five years ago.
To be honest, IMO the Bond series, if it carrys on with your formula, which can only last a few movies, as to why it has, will get very tired and boring.
The bond films needed the pump up that CR gives it. CR IMO is a movie that I always think about and none of it is forgettable.
Im glad that EON did this, they made the right choice.
Im tired of the GF, YOLT, MR, TND & DAD Bond movies, and these all have the perfect forumla that you refer to.
This is the most successful Bond and I can see why. Its back to the fantasy of SC bonds, but IMO it tops them with no chalenge.
"Better make that two."
After DAD, I think it was evident to just about everyone that changes were required. I was hoping for something along the lines of FYEO after MR. Babs & Mickey thought something more radical was required and have been proven right with the critical and commercial success of Casino Royale.
As for CR being the most successful Bond? In critical terms it's certainly a contender but in commercial terms it is certainly not a contender. Inflation adjusted, TB is the most successful followed by GF.
The question now is what does Eon do from here. Do they just flat out return to the old formula, stick to the new formula (not that it's that much different), or have a mix of the old and the new? I anticipate a mix of the old and new. For example, I wouldn't be surprised to see either Q or Moneypenny (or both) in Bond 22. Also, the gunbarrel will likely return to it's more traditional place.
As for being tired of the previous twenty films and their "perfect formula"? I never tire of any of them in their entirety, though it has to be said there are certain sequences in a few of them that I very rarely watch because they are either too poor or too cringeworthy. Examples, the second half of TND, the Jaws/Dolly romance in MR.
Yes thats what I meant, im not tired of THOSE movies, but if new movies were made following that exact formula it would get rather tired.
I agree with your prediction regarding B22.
"Better make that two."
Taity, I don't need you to give me 'advice' on what topics I should restrict myself to and nor do I need you to make personal comments to me like the one that started this. I wouldn't do it to you and I would appreciate that you not do it to me. If you can not do this, then perhaps you could just not respond to me?
Just ignore it Dan, carry on as you wish. {[]
"Better make that two."
I can't say I'm too thrilled that you're grouping GF and (to a lesser extent) YOLT in with MR, TND and (especially) DAD.
The formula is a major reason why I watch Bond. That is a major reason (not the only reason, but a major one) as to why I don't love CR; I don't believe that it followed the formula, either accurately or perfectly. I have to say though, I'm really explaining why I didn't love CR; not why I didn't like it. I liked it alot and it is definitely among my 13 favourite Bond films. -{
As for the reboot, I can't see Brozzer falling for Vesper much though I take DS's point on this, but I think CR only really could be done as a coming of age flick for our hero, or the producers were not that interested in it as a plot.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Formula is one reason why I watched Bond, but as I got older I began enjoying the Bonds that we're a little different, like TWINE, FYEO, CR, OHMSS etc.
I can see why you enjoy GF, its a great JB movie, but it doesnt really provoke me into thought, some could argue films shoudlnt, but I enjoy my films that way.....
CR certainly provoked a three dimesional thought towards a Bond films, like the novels.
"Better make that two."
*No real spoilers*
The absense of Q and Miss Moneypenny from Casino Royale sparked much discussion amongst 007 fans. Wade commented on this, saying: ‘Some people think they should be there and some people know that they shouldn’t be there. With the way Casino Royale ends, you know there’s still unfinished business for Bond. He may say, “The name’s Bond, James Bond,” but there’s still a lot of stuff churning up inside him. So, if you’re going to explore that, and we’ve got this great actor to do that with, what you don’t want to do is suddenly clamp it down with all these familiar elements that keep your focus off him. He’s the great asset.’
According to Purvis, Moneypenny would be the easier of the two to incorporate. ‘Q presents more problems. People have all got gadgets now. Other films have lots of gadgets as well… The idea of Q coming back, for the moment, it’s just not a high priority.’
And you guys want me to be optimistic...
-Roger Moore
I completely agree with it.
Who cares, try something different, he WILL come back soon!
"Better make that two."
Good post!
And very true!
"Better make that two."