It's not my opinion a reboot might have happened, it's not an assumption that this idea could have been successful, or that DC can act. The success and takings at the box office speak for themselves.
With this new direction the films have taken, it would now be laughable to involve the ideas from the classic era. With the huge success of the Austin Powers films, evil baddies and volcanos have become comedy parodies which people can no longer take seriously. They went too far with DAD, you honestly think EoN will make that mistake again?
True, it might be good box office but for me, personally, good ticket sales have never been an indicator of good films. Most people will go and see anything if marketed well.
Also, the Bond films have been spoofed and parodied all through the serious (both in film and on TV) and that didn’t cause Broccoli and Saltzman to reboot them after, say, Thunderball.
Bond films are meant to be fantasy and escapist. To try to make them “realistic” is to just pander to constantly changing public tastes and fashions in films.
Yes, but you can have fantasy elements with the realism - just witness the Dalton and the Craig eras for evidence of this approach. As minigeff has said more than once in this threadthis era is over. Done. Finisheed. Some Bond fans really need to realkise this fact and to move on and get with the times. There are plenty (20) fantasy Bond films to choose from - it's high time, is it not, that the Fleming purist got the James Bond they want and deserve. Let us have our time now when we'rte finally getting it. You've more than had yours, I think.
"The tough man of the world. The Secret Agent. The man who was only a silhouette." - Ian Fleming, Moonraker (1955).
It is pertinent to this discussion so I hope that the contributors to this thread on the old classic James Bond film era of c. 1962-2002 will read it and think about what it says and its conclusions!
It is pertinent to this discussion so I hope that the contributors to this thread on the old classic James Bond film era of c. 1962-2002 will read it and think about what it says and its conclusions!
If you alert us to it, we will.
I certainly will - should put this gem up on The Bondologist Blog in early January 2013.
It'll deal with all of this topic from a Fleming purist perspective, shall we say. -{
"The tough man of the world. The Secret Agent. The man who was only a silhouette." - Ian Fleming, Moonraker (1955).
It'll deal with all of this topic from a Fleming purist perspective, shall we say.
I’m not a Fleming purist, and have only read about five of the Bond novels, but a purist would probably say that FRWL was nearer Fleming vision for a filmic Bond than QOS is.
Silhouette ManThe last refuge of a scoundrelPosts: 8,845MI6 Agent
It'll deal with all of this topic from a Fleming purist perspective, shall we say.
I’m not a Fleming purist, and have only read about five of the Bond novels, but a purist would probably say that FRWL was nearer Fleming vision for a filmic Bond than QOS is.
That he indeed would, although I rate QoS very highly as a Bond film. My only real qualm is that they didn't use the short story at some point. A real shame they passed up on that one. However, it is still very Flemingesque - something that you can't say about very many Bond films, sadly!
I think that QoS is very underrated - it suffered from 2nd Bond film-itis and had the unenviable task of following up CR. The Writer's Strike of 2008 also hit it as did the fact it's the shortest Bond film to date (beating Dr. No to that record) and also that it is the third act of CR - a bold experiment nonetheless! -{
"The tough man of the world. The Secret Agent. The man who was only a silhouette." - Ian Fleming, Moonraker (1955).
I rate QoS very highly as a Bond film. My only real qualm is that they didn't use the short story at some point. A real shame they passed up on that one. However, it is still very Flemingesque -
How is it?
I’m not being argumentative. I’m genuinely interested.
Ok I'll make it pretty simple for those amongst us who fail to grasp why the Bond series is still going.
Back in the 'good old days', classic bond was very much fictional escapism. World domination etc etc was the ultimate goal of the bad guy. Bond started out in one form as a comic strip and to a degree the concept of this make believe spy story remained in the same kinda groove.
The big sets, fantastical escapism, outrageously manical villains and brilliantly inventive gadgets worked wonders.
These days though the world has changed massively. The once classical setup of evil baddy hiding in his evil lair has been parodied to hell, it's become laughable, you just can't do it seriously now, all thanks to the previously mentioned Mr Powers.
Michael Wilson and Barbara Brocolli have said many times that in order for Bond to remain current and successful, the plots need to have a hint of realism. Post 9/11, we have terrorism featuring in CR, QoS although centering around Vesper, hinted at natural resource exploitation. SF had MI6 going up in flames and cyber terrorism being pivotal to the plot.
So there's always a bit of escapism still, but it's toned down in comparison to the classic 60's Bond, and the plot has usually got some hint of realism to stop things getting out of control.
Featuring this realism enables the bond franchise to remain current and recognisable to the audience. I think the major mistake DAD made was straying too far from reality with invisible cars, an MI6 and CIA agent dropping into North Korea, space lasers etc.
So it was time for a change. Brossa had the door shut in his face, the slate was wiped, a reboot initiated and everything seen before wiped from existence, enabling Bond to start afresh and things be taken in a new direction.
If this hadn't have happened, I honestly think the bond films would have started to loose face and popularity; "new bond films out." "What happens?" "Oh usual bad guy, world domination, space laser thing".
With the inclusion of realism comes a need to stick to some elements of truth. For instance, MI6 is based at Vauxhall Cross, Bond has a boss who is accountable, "were you expecting an exploding pen? We don't really go in for that any more."
The reason we need these elements of realism is these days the real life security services are common knowledge, we know how they operate and where they're based. Back in connery's time we didn't know these things, so the bond producers had a free reign to make things up, revolving numberplates included. The producers know that any serious bond fan will also be into the real life aspect of spying and, like myself, have a bookshelf stacked with reference to these topics. Place MI6 in a cornershop, hidden behind a coke machine would cause eyebrows to rise and scoffing comments to start. Have MI6's bolt hole as Churchill's war bunkers makes things a little more believable and turns the film from comic parody into serious spy thriller.
So there ya go, I've now states pretty much every angle and reason I can think of as to why the bond films have gone in the 'brave new world' reboot direction.
In response all the critics can do is say "well I don't like it".
I'm real sorry, but if you want 'classic' bond, with volcanos and rocket swallowing spaceships, get the boxset out.
These days though the world has changed massively. The once classical setup of evil baddy hiding in his evil lair has been parodied to hell, it's become laughable, you just can't do it seriously now, all thanks to the previously mentioned Mr Powers
But there have always been parodies throughout the series, and still a reboot wasn't thought essential.
I think the major mistake DAD made was straying too far from reality with invisible cars, an MI6 and CIA agent dropping into North Korea, space lasers etc.
So it was time for a change. Brossa had the door shut in his face, the slate was wiped, a reboot initiated and everything seen before wiped from existence, enabling Bond to start afresh and things be taken in a new direction.
I agree DAD went too far, but why the reboot? Why not just tone things down?
The reason we need these elements of realism is these days the real life security services are common knowledge, we know how they operate and where they're based. Back in connery's time we didn't know these things, so the bond producers had a free reign to make things up, revolving numberplates included. The producers know that any serious bond fan will also be into the real life aspect of spying and, like myself, have a bookshelf stacked with reference to these topics. Place MI6 in a cornershop, hidden behind a coke machine would cause eyebrows to rise and scoffing comments to start. Have MI6's bolt hole as Churchill's war bunkers makes things a little more believable and turns the film from comic parody into serious spy thriller.
Good points. I’m not suggesting bringing back all that stuff. I’m just questioning the need for a reboot, when a far simpler solution would have been to just tone things down.
I think as far as the reboot goes, the producers said they wanted to do something that hasn't been done before, the only new angle was Bond's beginnings. Brosnan couldn't do that because the world knew him as a very established bond, quite a while into his career with MI6, this is backed up with Q's line when handing over Bond's trusty seamaster for the twentieth time.
So it was literally 'let's take bond back to the start' and to do so they needed a fresh face.
Brosnan was (I believe) capable of doing casino royale, but it would have had to be restructured to fit the established bond character. You imagine the fallout from that with the Fleming nuts?
'If in doubt, go back to what Fleming did' was the MO, and that's what they did.
I think as far as the reboot goes, the producers said they wanted to do something that hasn't been done before, the only new angle was Bond's beginnings.
If they wanted to do this, though, just to make Bond more realistic, surely they could have achieved that goal without a reboot, but by simply toning down the excesses of DAD, which would have been a less controversial decision.
I think as far as the reboot goes, the producers said they wanted to do something that hasn't been done before, the only new angle was Bond's beginnings.
If they wanted to do this, though, just to make Bond more realistic, surely they could have achieved that goal without a reboot, but by simply toning down the excesses of DAD, which would have been a less controversial decision.
FFS are you f@cking retarded or just got an Olympic gold at being annoying?!
The reboot took place in order for a breath of fresh air to be injected into the franchise.
The realism is included in the new films in order to give them some form of grounding in our real world.
You're getting everything mixed up, I now suspect on purpose.
The reboot was a risk and maybe controversial in your eyes but hey, it worked, people loved it and that's the way it is. End of.
I rate QoS very highly as a Bond film. My only real qualm is that they didn't use the short story at some point. A real shame they passed up on that one. However, it is still very Flemingesque -
How is it?
I’m not being argumentative. I’m genuinely interested.
Oh, but I think, as minigeff says, you're being contrary. Of Course the Craig films have returned the films to Fleming - perhaps you just need to get out there and read more of them. Then I'll debate with you - not before. We need to be on a level playing field and by your own admission we don't currently have that - you've only read 5 or 6 of the original Fleming novels - come on!
"The tough man of the world. The Secret Agent. The man who was only a silhouette." - Ian Fleming, Moonraker (1955).
Comments
Possibly, but Bond films, like Greek mythology, are not about reality.
Yes, but you can have fantasy elements with the realism - just witness the Dalton and the Craig eras for evidence of this approach. As minigeff has said more than once in this threadthis era is over. Done. Finisheed. Some Bond fans really need to realkise this fact and to move on and get with the times. There are plenty (20) fantasy Bond films to choose from - it's high time, is it not, that the Fleming purist got the James Bond they want and deserve. Let us have our time now when we'rte finally getting it. You've more than had yours, I think.
If you alert us to it, we will.
And do you really think the reboot is doing this?
I certainly will - should put this gem up on The Bondologist Blog in early January 2013.
It'll deal with all of this topic from a Fleming purist perspective, shall we say. -{
I’m not a Fleming purist, and have only read about five of the Bond novels, but a purist would probably say that FRWL was nearer Fleming vision for a filmic Bond than QOS is.
That he indeed would, although I rate QoS very highly as a Bond film. My only real qualm is that they didn't use the short story at some point. A real shame they passed up on that one. However, it is still very Flemingesque - something that you can't say about very many Bond films, sadly!
I think that QoS is very underrated - it suffered from 2nd Bond film-itis and had the unenviable task of following up CR. The Writer's Strike of 2008 also hit it as did the fact it's the shortest Bond film to date (beating Dr. No to that record) and also that it is the third act of CR - a bold experiment nonetheless! -{
How is it?
I’m not being argumentative. I’m genuinely interested.
Back in the 'good old days', classic bond was very much fictional escapism. World domination etc etc was the ultimate goal of the bad guy. Bond started out in one form as a comic strip and to a degree the concept of this make believe spy story remained in the same kinda groove.
The big sets, fantastical escapism, outrageously manical villains and brilliantly inventive gadgets worked wonders.
These days though the world has changed massively. The once classical setup of evil baddy hiding in his evil lair has been parodied to hell, it's become laughable, you just can't do it seriously now, all thanks to the previously mentioned Mr Powers.
Michael Wilson and Barbara Brocolli have said many times that in order for Bond to remain current and successful, the plots need to have a hint of realism. Post 9/11, we have terrorism featuring in CR, QoS although centering around Vesper, hinted at natural resource exploitation. SF had MI6 going up in flames and cyber terrorism being pivotal to the plot.
So there's always a bit of escapism still, but it's toned down in comparison to the classic 60's Bond, and the plot has usually got some hint of realism to stop things getting out of control.
Featuring this realism enables the bond franchise to remain current and recognisable to the audience. I think the major mistake DAD made was straying too far from reality with invisible cars, an MI6 and CIA agent dropping into North Korea, space lasers etc.
So it was time for a change. Brossa had the door shut in his face, the slate was wiped, a reboot initiated and everything seen before wiped from existence, enabling Bond to start afresh and things be taken in a new direction.
If this hadn't have happened, I honestly think the bond films would have started to loose face and popularity; "new bond films out." "What happens?" "Oh usual bad guy, world domination, space laser thing".
With the inclusion of realism comes a need to stick to some elements of truth. For instance, MI6 is based at Vauxhall Cross, Bond has a boss who is accountable, "were you expecting an exploding pen? We don't really go in for that any more."
The reason we need these elements of realism is these days the real life security services are common knowledge, we know how they operate and where they're based. Back in connery's time we didn't know these things, so the bond producers had a free reign to make things up, revolving numberplates included. The producers know that any serious bond fan will also be into the real life aspect of spying and, like myself, have a bookshelf stacked with reference to these topics. Place MI6 in a cornershop, hidden behind a coke machine would cause eyebrows to rise and scoffing comments to start. Have MI6's bolt hole as Churchill's war bunkers makes things a little more believable and turns the film from comic parody into serious spy thriller.
So there ya go, I've now states pretty much every angle and reason I can think of as to why the bond films have gone in the 'brave new world' reboot direction.
In response all the critics can do is say "well I don't like it".
I'm real sorry, but if you want 'classic' bond, with volcanos and rocket swallowing spaceships, get the boxset out.
MG -{
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
But there have always been parodies throughout the series, and still a reboot wasn't thought essential.
I agree DAD went too far, but why the reboot? Why not just tone things down?
Good points. I’m not suggesting bringing back all that stuff. I’m just questioning the need for a reboot, when a far simpler solution would have been to just tone things down.
So it was literally 'let's take bond back to the start' and to do so they needed a fresh face.
Brosnan was (I believe) capable of doing casino royale, but it would have had to be restructured to fit the established bond character. You imagine the fallout from that with the Fleming nuts?
'If in doubt, go back to what Fleming did' was the MO, and that's what they did.
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
If they wanted to do this, though, just to make Bond more realistic, surely they could have achieved that goal without a reboot, but by simply toning down the excesses of DAD, which would have been a less controversial decision.
FFS are you f@cking retarded or just got an Olympic gold at being annoying?!
The reboot took place in order for a breath of fresh air to be injected into the franchise.
The realism is included in the new films in order to give them some form of grounding in our real world.
You're getting everything mixed up, I now suspect on purpose.
The reboot was a risk and maybe controversial in your eyes but hey, it worked, people loved it and that's the way it is. End of.
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
But why a reboot, just to do this?
Only new angle to go from.
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
Oh, but I think, as minigeff says, you're being contrary. Of Course the Craig films have returned the films to Fleming - perhaps you just need to get out there and read more of them. Then I'll debate with you - not before. We need to be on a level playing field and by your own admission we don't currently have that - you've only read 5 or 6 of the original Fleming novels - come on!