I Admit I'm one of the few who thinks eon has done a more than adequate job of extending the bond legacy, no mean feat after nearly 50yrs.
I also love craigs bond - he had a tough job making the role his - and I was one of the skeptics, especially before I saw layer cake.
And I have always loved brossa, and goldeneye (effectively a re-boot too) is one of my favorite films.
But this year he will be 58yrs old. Admittedly for a 58yr old he looks great - has hos hair, is in fair shape and remains handsome ( though the guy Fawkes pic kicking around damages that image). I wonder if those calling for bros to return realize that sir roger was the same age in avtak? Bros was proud of his ability to do so many stunts, but the injury in dad which cost delay to filming was probably the last straw for babs/MW and they made the right decision.
DC is in the best shape of his life and has at least another 5yrs of stunt-age left in him fate permitting.
Finally I understand why many feel the quantum plot is complex and maybe even pointless and boring.
But I like it - it's very bond, very fleming, very 2012 and worryingly plausible.
I won't go into it deeper (as requested above ) and I wrote most of my tgts in the review section anyway.
This was always a multi-part theme and I expect quantum to remain and regularly resurface in much the same way as SPECTRE did. And quantum has all the potential to offer menace, intrigue and double cross.
Certainly a reboot was needed, but not this reboot.
Dump the present reboot and start over again.
Richard
The top 7 Bond films: 1) Dr No. 2) From Russia With Love. 3) Thunderball. 4) On Her Majesty's Secret Service. 5) For Your Eyes Only. 6) The Living Daylights. 7) Licence to Kill.
I am surprised at the harsh disliking of the reboot. I agree that after Craig, we need the Bond experience back in old form, but Casino Royale is my favorite movie. And I am pretty sure they said they won't be continuing any plot of CR or QoS into Bond 23. They had said that the next would be Craig introducing us to Bond as we know him normally, now that the origin story and why he became who he is was finished in QoS. They said they opted not to film a scene at the end of QoS that would ask the question of Mr. White and Quantum's survival, but instead they just filmed the wrap-up of the Vesper plot so that the next director wouldn't be in the same position that QoS started in (needing plot continuation and such). I fully expect Bond 23 to be the reboot's take on the classic Bond film layout, not the emotional journey into the development of Bond. I think that they can do another 1 or 2 great movies with Craig's take on Bond before going back to gadgets and suggestive one-liners.
I know this forum is fans of the franchise, so those who oppose the newer style are understood and somewhat expected, but I love the older ones and the new. I see little reason to dislike the reboot to the point of ignoring it. It is Bond stripped down to an incredible man, but no doubt people want more than Bond the Man in upcoming iterations judging by some of your comments. That still doesn't seem like reason to be unable to embrace this one of the multiple incarnations Bond has varied with since its beginning.
Don't forget the reboot, it is a great ride and memory that I look back at as one of the several high points in the long history of Bond espionage and elegance.
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,749Chief of Staff
I am surprised at the harsh disliking of the reboot.
That is only from certain quarters mind...I think the majority enjoy what Craig/Eon is doing...even if a few more don't particularly enjoy Mr Craig himself !
I just think it's easier to criticise today...and to get your views across to a wider audience...the internet has a lot to answer for
The reboot does create a problem in the post Craig 'Bondiverse' as it must impact upon who follows. Even if we assume that 23 is DC's last it still means that if they cast young it could be hard to avoid a reboot of the reboot with another Rookie Bond, and if they cast older it will be a Bond either at or near the end of his career (same thing holds if DC stays on for 24)
I have always wanted that jaded world-weary slightly past his prime Bond ( as long as they avoid the hackneyed "I'm too old for this ****" schtick) Perhaps if DC stays on he could do that and pave the way for the next chap. Otherwise we would be looking for a one-shot tenure for an older Bond before going back to a Bond in his prime.
For me this has always been a problem with the reboot as DC was a bit to old to pull off that element in CR. It seemed to make more sense for a slightly younger actor.
I would like a touch of amnesia for 23 with a new standalone adventure for a fully formed Bond in his prime and in the middle of his career.
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,749Chief of Staff
The reboot does create a problem in the post Craig 'Bondiverse' as it must impact upon who follows. Even if we assume that 23 is DC's last it still means that if they cast young it could be hard to avoid a reboot of the reboot with another Rookie Bond, and if they cast older it will be a Bond either at or near the end of his career (same thing holds if DC stays on for 24)
It shouldn't have to impact at all...the actors that followed Connery didn't have that problem...none of the previous (with the possible exception of George) were called to 'reboot' the franchise...the films just followed on...there was a fair age difference between Roger and Tim...and that wasn't a problem...well, except for bondtoys)
The reboot does create a problem in the post Craig 'Bondiverse' as it must impact upon who follows. Even if we assume that 23 is DC's last it still means that if they cast young it could be hard to avoid a reboot of the reboot with another Rookie Bond, and if they cast older it will be a Bond either at or near the end of his career (same thing holds if DC stays on for 24)
I have always wanted that jaded world-weary slightly past his prime Bond ( as long as they avoid the hackneyed "I'm too old for this ****" schtick) Perhaps if DC stays on he could do that and pave the way for the next chap. Otherwise we would be looking for a one-shot tenure for an older Bond before going back to a Bond in his prime.
For me this has always been a problem with the reboot as DC was a bit to old to pull off that element in CR. It seemed to make more sense for a slightly younger actor.
I would like a touch of amnesia for 23 with a new standalone adventure for a fully formed Bond in his prime and in the middle of his career.
I too always thought Craig was a little old for the reboot concept. He was the same age as when Dalton took over the role and almost 10 years older than Lazenby. He was pushing 40 and I believe in the original Flemming novels mandatory retirement age for an agent is 45. In the novel CR Bond was 28-29 years old ( According to Bond's obit in YOLT he was 17 in 1941 so he was born in 1924 and CR took place in 1953 ).
The good news is that there will be a 4 year gap between films and theoretically Bond could have gone on a dozen missions in that time. Craig said he will be very suave in this film so I expect to see a more traditional Bond this go round. -{ -{ -{
The reboot does create a problem in the post Craig 'Bondiverse' as it must impact upon who follows. Even if we assume that 23 is DC's last it still means that if they cast young it could be hard to avoid a reboot of the reboot with another Rookie Bond, and if they cast older it will be a Bond either at or near the end of his career (same thing holds if DC stays on for 24)
It shouldn't have to impact at all...the actors that followed Connery didn't have that problem...none of the previous (with the possible exception of George) were called to 'reboot' the franchise...the films just followed on...there was a fair age difference between Roger and Tim...and that wasn't a problem...well, except for bondtoys)
You are right of course, but those cases were different in as much as they did not have the existence of a reboot to contend with. With the 'sleight of hand' of CR we have as an audience been asked to 'go back' to a specific point with Bond at the very beginning of his 00 career. This in itself is a game changer . I appreciate that the films have always played fast and loose with the timeline in a kind of 'perpetual present ' but argue that this time it is substantively different.
The reboot does create a problem in the post Craig 'Bondiverse' as it must impact upon who follows. Even if we assume that 23 is DC's last it still means that if they cast young it could be hard to avoid a reboot of the reboot with another Rookie Bond, and if they cast older it will be a Bond either at or near the end of his career (same thing holds if DC stays on for 24)
I have always wanted that jaded world-weary slightly past his prime Bond ( as long as they avoid the hackneyed "I'm too old for this ****" schtick) Perhaps if DC stays on he could do that and pave the way for the next chap. Otherwise we would be looking for a one-shot tenure for an older Bond before going back to a Bond in his prime.
For me this has always been a problem with the reboot as DC was a bit to old to pull off that element in CR. It seemed to make more sense for a slightly younger actor.
I would like a touch of amnesia for 23 with a new standalone adventure for a fully formed Bond in his prime and in the middle of his career.
I too always thought Craig was a little old for the reboot concept. He was the same age as when Dalton took over the role and almost 10 years older than Lazenby. He was pushing 40 and I believe in the original Flemming novels mandatory retirement age for an agent is 45. In the novel CR Bond was 28-29 years old ( According to Bond's obit in YOLT he was 17 in 1941 so he was born in 1924 and CR took place in 1953 ).
The good news is that there will be a 4 year gap between films and theoretically Bond could have gone on a dozen missions in that time. Craig said he will be very suave in this film so I expect to see a more traditional Bond this go round. -{ -{ -{
I hope that too and for some reason feel optimistic that 23 will be a corker, tough, gritty, but with a sense of glamour and panache. The casting of ' the girl' will be crucial. I'm hoping for an 'age appropriate ' Woman' with curves and everything...
Well, Bond's age got amended by Fleming, marked down if you like, as the novels progressed. In the original book he was maybe mid-30s, there's mention of his wartime role which he couldn't have done if he was 17 in 1941.
Still, dunno, a young Bond for the film CR wouldn't have worked to my mind either.
I don't care less about ages etc in reboot and I don't think EON do either. They will just replace the actor regardless and like most reboots won't care about the previous films and it all "fitting in"
Well, Bond's age got amended by Fleming, marked down if you like, as the novels progressed. In the original book he was maybe mid-30s, there's mention of his wartime role which he couldn't have done if he was 17 in 1941.
Still, dunno, a young Bond for the film CR wouldn't have worked to my mind either.
I said 'slightly younger' by which I meant early thirties. I think that Fleming rightly realised that by stating specifics he potentially could paint himself into a corner, so rather than getting younger he seemed to stay in his mid-late thirties more or less. I can't remember where (someone on here is bound to recall) but I remember Bond musing upon how many assignments he had left before compulsory retirement at I think 46. He certainly seems older in TMWTGG' but timelines in Bond are fascinatingly vague.
They can't ignore the reboot,it had to be done !the time line was getting silly ! In dr no bond had been using the first gun for ten years ! That was 1962 ! So with out the reboot bond would be 90 years old
They can't ignore the reboot,it had to be done !the time line was getting silly ! In dr no bond had been using the first gun for ten years ! That was 1962 ! So with out the reboot bond would be 90 years old
I really don't agree that Bond would have to be 90. After Roger Moore retired, the age of 007 was no longer relevant. An older Bond visits Tracy's gave with a DOD of 1969 on in in FYEO. However, it is mentioned that Bond was married in Licence to Kill and I believe one other Brosnan film, plus DAD tied Brosnan to the older films (and he was not in his 70s).
You can ditch the reboot and not have to make the character super old.
With every new actor The Producers would update the character of Bond. In a way Bond existed in his own Time so it didn't matter if he clearly couldn't be the same agent from Dr No or DAD. Every film was a stand alone, I don't think whhen they began they expected the series to be still running after 50 years. )
Even in the Fleming kept Bond at around 35 or so, with many years between Novels.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Comments
I can't see them changing the contract before the original runs out...the original was for three films with the option of a fourth...
I Admit I'm one of the few who thinks eon has done a more than adequate job of extending the bond legacy, no mean feat after nearly 50yrs.
I also love craigs bond - he had a tough job making the role his - and I was one of the skeptics, especially before I saw layer cake.
And I have always loved brossa, and goldeneye (effectively a re-boot too) is one of my favorite films.
But this year he will be 58yrs old. Admittedly for a 58yr old he looks great - has hos hair, is in fair shape and remains handsome ( though the guy Fawkes pic kicking around damages that image). I wonder if those calling for bros to return realize that sir roger was the same age in avtak? Bros was proud of his ability to do so many stunts, but the injury in dad which cost delay to filming was probably the last straw for babs/MW and they made the right decision.
DC is in the best shape of his life and has at least another 5yrs of stunt-age left in him fate permitting.
Finally I understand why many feel the quantum plot is complex and maybe even pointless and boring.
But I like it - it's very bond, very fleming, very 2012 and worryingly plausible.
I won't go into it deeper (as requested above ) and I wrote most of my tgts in the review section anyway.
This was always a multi-part theme and I expect quantum to remain and regularly resurface in much the same way as SPECTRE did. And quantum has all the potential to offer menace, intrigue and double cross.
Yes.
Certainly a reboot was needed, but not this reboot.
Dump the present reboot and start over again.
Richard
Reflections in a double bourbon...
http://youtu.be/B9IPhAYahIg
I know this forum is fans of the franchise, so those who oppose the newer style are understood and somewhat expected, but I love the older ones and the new. I see little reason to dislike the reboot to the point of ignoring it. It is Bond stripped down to an incredible man, but no doubt people want more than Bond the Man in upcoming iterations judging by some of your comments. That still doesn't seem like reason to be unable to embrace this one of the multiple incarnations Bond has varied with since its beginning.
Don't forget the reboot, it is a great ride and memory that I look back at as one of the several high points in the long history of Bond espionage and elegance.
That is only from certain quarters mind...I think the majority enjoy what Craig/Eon is doing...even if a few more don't particularly enjoy Mr Craig himself !
I just think it's easier to criticise today...and to get your views across to a wider audience...the internet has a lot to answer for
The reboot and D.C is the best thing to happen to Bond since S.C.
I have always wanted that jaded world-weary slightly past his prime Bond ( as long as they avoid the hackneyed "I'm too old for this ****" schtick) Perhaps if DC stays on he could do that and pave the way for the next chap. Otherwise we would be looking for a one-shot tenure for an older Bond before going back to a Bond in his prime.
For me this has always been a problem with the reboot as DC was a bit to old to pull off that element in CR. It seemed to make more sense for a slightly younger actor.
I would like a touch of amnesia for 23 with a new standalone adventure for a fully formed Bond in his prime and in the middle of his career.
It shouldn't have to impact at all...the actors that followed Connery didn't have that problem...none of the previous (with the possible exception of George) were called to 'reboot' the franchise...the films just followed on...there was a fair age difference between Roger and Tim...and that wasn't a problem...well, except for bondtoys
I too always thought Craig was a little old for the reboot concept. He was the same age as when Dalton took over the role and almost 10 years older than Lazenby. He was pushing 40 and I believe in the original Flemming novels mandatory retirement age for an agent is 45. In the novel CR Bond was 28-29 years old ( According to Bond's obit in YOLT he was 17 in 1941 so he was born in 1924 and CR took place in 1953 ).
The good news is that there will be a 4 year gap between films and theoretically Bond could have gone on a dozen missions in that time. Craig said he will be very suave in this film so I expect to see a more traditional Bond this go round. -{ -{ -{
his age was the smallest problem :v
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
You are right of course, but those cases were different in as much as they did not have the existence of a reboot to contend with. With the 'sleight of hand' of CR we have as an audience been asked to 'go back' to a specific point with Bond at the very beginning of his 00 career. This in itself is a game changer . I appreciate that the films have always played fast and loose with the timeline in a kind of 'perpetual present ' but argue that this time it is substantively different.
I hope that too and for some reason feel optimistic that 23 will be a corker, tough, gritty, but with a sense of glamour and panache. The casting of ' the girl' will be crucial. I'm hoping for an 'age appropriate ' Woman' with curves and everything...
Still, dunno, a young Bond for the film CR wouldn't have worked to my mind either.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I said 'slightly younger' by which I meant early thirties. I think that Fleming rightly realised that by stating specifics he potentially could paint himself into a corner, so rather than getting younger he seemed to stay in his mid-late thirties more or less. I can't remember where (someone on here is bound to recall) but I remember Bond musing upon how many assignments he had left before compulsory retirement at I think 46. He certainly seems older in TMWTGG' but timelines in Bond are fascinatingly vague.
I really don't agree that Bond would have to be 90. After Roger Moore retired, the age of 007 was no longer relevant. An older Bond visits Tracy's gave with a DOD of 1969 on in in FYEO. However, it is mentioned that Bond was married in Licence to Kill and I believe one other Brosnan film, plus DAD tied Brosnan to the older films (and he was not in his 70s).
You can ditch the reboot and not have to make the character super old.
Even in the Fleming kept Bond at around 35 or so, with many years between Novels.