'The Spectator' Article - Why it's time to kill off James Bond
Silhouette Man
The last refuge of a scoundrelPosts: 8,845MI6 Agent
Link here:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/arts/heckler/9493932/the-heckler-why-its-time-to-kill-off-james-bond/
So what do we make of this then? -{
http://www.spectator.co.uk/arts/heckler/9493932/the-heckler-why-its-time-to-kill-off-james-bond/
So what do we make of this then? -{
"The tough man of the world. The Secret Agent. The man who was only a silhouette." - Ian Fleming, Moonraker (1955).
Comments
No one reads the spectator anyway but what it could mean someone else picking this up and running with it
We had enough trouble regarding idris Elba and the race row. Bond is big news now. I expect lots of silly stories.
Using anything gleaned from the Sony leaks is a joke....those were the ramblings and rumblings of a bunch of Hollywood bean counters who only give a fat rat's arse about the financial bottom line. The story about EON giving in to the the Mexican government for money has never been proven as fact and even if they did, EON is not the British or American Government, they are in the entertainment business and making a Bond film not a documentary on the troubles in Mexico. Finally, who cares what this twit thinks. Too much of what is written these days is to insite a reaction. The other thing that this bozo also ignores is the 5000 lb gorilla in the room....Bonds films are just as popular as ever. The bottom line is, as long as people will pay money to see James Bond films, there will be James Bond films.
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
The basic gripe is that the writing, especially after Casino Royale, has been underwhelming, substituting the trivia of Bond's back story for what the series would in the past have embraced -- wit, romance, adventure, derring-do. He's right. The first film was enough of an origin story that we could have moved on. Bonds are a film franchise, not a cable TV serial.
Collectively, the three films seem to have spent a lot of time to keep the character spinning his wheels while the films still feel like they want to build to something better. It's becoming trite, especially for audiences who grew up on the classic films.
While I don't think it's time to end the Bond films, I'd agree that it's time to move on from the current approach.
AJB007 Favorite Film Rankings
Pros and Cons Compendium (50 Years)
Kill off the series ? ...... )
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
AJB007 Favorite Film Rankings
Pros and Cons Compendium (50 Years)
what next ,a article in Zipper )
Never knew that
And AS, don't you mean 'Young Mucker' ? )
Sounds like it was a scandal rag back in Flemings day. Honestly, who reads the Spectator?
Conservative Party voters and members as it's their publication, just as the left-wing read the New Statesman.
Casino Royale, while far from perfect, did an admirable job of reinventing the character for modern times, a trend most certainly de rigueur. I gave an allowance to QOS for completing the story arc, but Skyfall's bastardization of Fleming's character and its fear of offending anyone classifies it as one of the series' lesser entries. Brutality, sexism and wit are key ingredients sorely missed.
I'd agrue that another reboot will be required after Craig's tenure, not in story but in tone, similar to FYEO's following of Moonraker. However, given current trends, the Bond custodians (I cannot refer to them as producers) will most likely revert back to the over-indulgence and fantasy of Brosnan's films.
Oh dear, another writer with an anti-Bond agenda. I really have no time for these essays by superior types. They read dull & humourless despite their striving for cool irony. In fact I could write such pieces for them as I know exactly what they're going to say in advance. It's also a little laughable when they attempt to show a knowledge of 007 by shoehorning in the clichéd 'glory days' line, as though their (limited) knowledge is well on a par with real Bond fans. Film critics have always come unstuck with this & the Spectator writer is no exception. A long-running series has to evolve with the times whilst staying faithful to the ethos of the character. I think the last three films have done just that.
So, I can accept criticism from my fellow AJB fans - people with a passion for the character, books & films. But not from somebody with a desire to hate a well-loved series of films because it doesn't fit in with their skewed political ideology.
Well, I really wouldn't go that far, old chap.
I guess what I meant was that a drastic shift in narrative and characterisation might substitute for a reboot, thus presenting the world an updated Bond that more closely represents Fleming's idea but inserts a modern pathos, for those that find it necessary...
How many of these "journalists" have pronounced the Bond series and the character to be a dead, anachronistic piece of art every time a new actor was brought in or the direction was updated. It really gets tired after a while. It's almost as if they are forced by their employer to write the piece so they already have a bad attitude to start with.
They cover up their ignorance of a subject by attempting to write with a pseudo sense of style and pompousness that to me just reveals their contempt for the subject and the laziness of their ideas (lets compare the third act of SF to Home Alone - once again, since no one on the planet has ever seen any other film in the history of cinema where this has been done before - and it certainly doesn't belong in a Bond film!).
"Journalists" like these scare me. Because their article is in a well known publication, those reading their work automatically assume they know what they are reporting on.
Instead, they remind me of many of their generation. They don't care about the past very much - in particular anything that happened of relevance before their lifetime - and what's worse will forget it. Then they will produce another generation who will think Sherlock Holmes is a film character that was played by Iron Man or that Orson Welles only did Rosebud - oh, wait, Cititzen Kane, or....wait, who's Orson Welles?
( Sorry, silly joke ) ;%
Their powers of prediction have proven to be as bad as their prose. )
They don't want to insult or cause problems during filming in a country, even ( LTK)
Had a fictional country, as I'm sure any S.American country would be complaining
if they were shown to have corrupt politicians in the pocket of a drug lord.
But thats more to do with Rome's Mayor and Council.