Spectre
- Thread starter rodneyfaile
- Start date
re: Bond 24
Although true I only count the Flemming books as "Bond novels". Everything else is fan fiction. :lol
Not sure I'm thrilled with the idea of that name but we'll see!
Although true I only count the Flemming books as "Bond novels". Everything else is fan fiction. :lol
Not sure I'm thrilled with the idea of that name but we'll see!
re: Bond 24
I don't know if i'm alone on this but...
With all the ingredients of the "classic" Bond falling into place like the male M, Q, MoneyPenny I get the feeling we're headed for a campier Bond in the vein of the Brosnan era, which compared to the Craig Bond is pretty campy.
My bad. Sorry folks. Back to Bond 24.
I don't know if i'm alone on this but...
With all the ingredients of the "classic" Bond falling into place like the male M, Q, MoneyPenny I get the feeling we're headed for a campier Bond in the vein of the Brosnan era, which compared to the Craig Bond is pretty campy.
re: Bond 24
I disagree. On the contrary I'm hopeful for a return to the feel of films like Dr. No and FRWL. Both who had those three characters (although Q is referred to as the "armourer").
I disagree. On the contrary I'm hopeful for a return to the feel of films like Dr. No and FRWL. Both who had those three characters (although Q is referred to as the "armourer").
Bigdaddy
Master Member
re: Bond 24
cool
I think the DC films did a great job of returning to a "serious" Bond, both in character and in film making. The end of Skyfall seemed to indicate (to me) that I had watched a 3 part prequel to Dr. No, and the DC Bond was developing into the smooth, calculating (somewhat cold) agent we met from 1962. Hopefully they continue on this path with future Bond films no matter who plays him.
cool
rodneyfaile
Sr Member
re: Bond 24
"Skyfall" Scribe Talks Bond's Future | News | Dark Horizons
With EON now having scored back the rights to the character of Ernst Stavro Blofeld, the nemesis of the Sean Connery-era Bond, Logan was asked about the new film's villain and whether Blofeld would make an appearance.
All Logan would say was: "You know, I think our villain's appropriate to the story we're telling."
"Skyfall" Scribe Talks Bond's Future | News | Dark Horizons
With EON now having scored back the rights to the character of Ernst Stavro Blofeld, the nemesis of the Sean Connery-era Bond, Logan was asked about the new film's villain and whether Blofeld would make an appearance.
All Logan would say was: "You know, I think our villain's appropriate to the story we're telling."
Solo4114
Master Member
re: Bond 24
I'm with Michael Bergeron and Bigdaddy on this. I don't see any reason why the return to form in these aspects would signal anything one way or the other.
To switch to a campier Bond would be jarring at this point. More importantly, I don't think a campy Bond is really appropriate in today's world. If you look at filmmaking trends, campiness is generally downplayed, particularly in the espionage film arena. Bond has had to compete with the Bourne franchise, and I guarantee you the Jack Ryan franchise is going to be an issue as well, if this new film succeeds. Relying on over-the-top cartoon villains, underground lairs, commando assaults on said underground lair, and awful punnery is going to feel positively "retro" at a time when the Bond franchise needs to keep reminding people that it is the granddaddy of espionage films for a REASON (and that reason isn't "He'll never be the HEAD of a major corporation" style quips or reliance on gadgetry).
Actually, playing off of that, I think that the Austin Powers films were in some ways the slow poison of the Bond franchise in that iteration of Bond. It took about 5 years to fully sink in, but when Mike Myers' film laid bare all of the most "paint by numbers" aspects of Bond films, it was the warning sign that they needed to shake things up. It wasn't just that you had 60s styles and such, but rather that the film was so built around the "fish out of water" experience of its central character, and in so doing, highlighted pretty much all the things that the Bond franchise had relied upon since its inception. They played at the edges some (e.g., a female M, a new Q, female villains and co-agents), but the franchise had just gotten stale, and the Myers films (particularly the first one) kind of revealed that (albeit, I suspect, without realizing the fact). This stuff was OLD.
Off the top of my head, the films that deviated significantly and notably from the established formula were generally the ones that were less popular -- OHMSS, TLD, and LTK. The Brosnan films were pretty much the same ol' same ol', just updated somewhat. They weren't bad films (Well, DAD was...), but they were definitely old hat. DAD was the final straw because it basically figured that the best way to make the old hat seem less old was to dial everything up to 11...which only further highlighted how worn out the old formula was.
What I appreciate about the Daniel Craig films is that, while Bond can be over-the-top in some instances (the parkour duel ending on the crane, for example, in CR), the character of Bond is treated seriously. Moreover, he relies on intelligence, ingenuity, and grit to get through most scrapes, and as many times as he may pop his cuffs after leaping on to a train, he'll also get SHOT IN THE FREAKING CHEST AND FALL OFF A BRIDGE now. Bond is far more vulnerable than in the old days, and he really gets beat up. To me, that makes his ultimate triumph feel more earned and more believable than, say, during the Moore era or the Brosnan era.
I think the DC films did a great job of returning to a "serious" Bond, both in character and in film making. The end of Skyfall seemed to indicate (to me) that I had watched a 3 part prequel to Dr. No, and the DC Bond was developing into the smooth, calculating (somewhat cold) agent we met from 1962. Hopefully they continue on this path with future Bond films no matter who plays him.
I'm with Michael Bergeron and Bigdaddy on this. I don't see any reason why the return to form in these aspects would signal anything one way or the other.
To switch to a campier Bond would be jarring at this point. More importantly, I don't think a campy Bond is really appropriate in today's world. If you look at filmmaking trends, campiness is generally downplayed, particularly in the espionage film arena. Bond has had to compete with the Bourne franchise, and I guarantee you the Jack Ryan franchise is going to be an issue as well, if this new film succeeds. Relying on over-the-top cartoon villains, underground lairs, commando assaults on said underground lair, and awful punnery is going to feel positively "retro" at a time when the Bond franchise needs to keep reminding people that it is the granddaddy of espionage films for a REASON (and that reason isn't "He'll never be the HEAD of a major corporation" style quips or reliance on gadgetry).
Actually, playing off of that, I think that the Austin Powers films were in some ways the slow poison of the Bond franchise in that iteration of Bond. It took about 5 years to fully sink in, but when Mike Myers' film laid bare all of the most "paint by numbers" aspects of Bond films, it was the warning sign that they needed to shake things up. It wasn't just that you had 60s styles and such, but rather that the film was so built around the "fish out of water" experience of its central character, and in so doing, highlighted pretty much all the things that the Bond franchise had relied upon since its inception. They played at the edges some (e.g., a female M, a new Q, female villains and co-agents), but the franchise had just gotten stale, and the Myers films (particularly the first one) kind of revealed that (albeit, I suspect, without realizing the fact). This stuff was OLD.
Off the top of my head, the films that deviated significantly and notably from the established formula were generally the ones that were less popular -- OHMSS, TLD, and LTK. The Brosnan films were pretty much the same ol' same ol', just updated somewhat. They weren't bad films (Well, DAD was...), but they were definitely old hat. DAD was the final straw because it basically figured that the best way to make the old hat seem less old was to dial everything up to 11...which only further highlighted how worn out the old formula was.
What I appreciate about the Daniel Craig films is that, while Bond can be over-the-top in some instances (the parkour duel ending on the crane, for example, in CR), the character of Bond is treated seriously. Moreover, he relies on intelligence, ingenuity, and grit to get through most scrapes, and as many times as he may pop his cuffs after leaping on to a train, he'll also get SHOT IN THE FREAKING CHEST AND FALL OFF A BRIDGE now. Bond is far more vulnerable than in the old days, and he really gets beat up. To me, that makes his ultimate triumph feel more earned and more believable than, say, during the Moore era or the Brosnan era.
laserpistol76
Well-Known Member
re: Bond 24
I'd love to see a campy Bond film like Pierce Brosnan's. Those were my favorite
I'd love to see a campy Bond film like Pierce Brosnan's. Those were my favorite
re: Bond 24
Of course as usual Solo's entire post is very well written but this in particular? BINGO.
One of the biggest differences between the books and the films is that in the books Bond basically belongs in traction by the end of the adventure. :lol The Bond of the novels isn't Superman. He bleeds.
Of course as usual Solo's entire post is very well written but this in particular? BINGO.
One of the biggest differences between the books and the films is that in the books Bond basically belongs in traction by the end of the adventure. :lol The Bond of the novels isn't Superman. He bleeds.
BornOffire
New Member
re: Bond 24
When will this end?
When will this end?
rodneyfaile
Sr Member
re: Bond 24
Wonder who they would cast as Blofeld.
What would having Blofeld in these new movies do to the continuity? Spectre? Quantum? Mr. White?
Wonder who they would cast as Blofeld.
What would having Blofeld in these new movies do to the continuity? Spectre? Quantum? Mr. White?
darthgordon
Sr Member
re: Bond 24
Quantum was basically set up to be SPECTRE. They just had to change the name due to the rights. I'm glad to hear they can bring back Bloefeld... Maybe they can make the character a little more consistent this time around. Skyfall was basically the conclusion of a trilogy about Bond becoming Bond. Which left me with very excited to see the next chapter... But Please no jet packs, or invisible cars.
Something that confused me... The new M was seen at the end of Skyfall in an office that appeared identical to the office in the early movies... Which was in the old MI-6 building... The architecture doesn't really fit the new building either...
Quantum was basically set up to be SPECTRE. They just had to change the name due to the rights. I'm glad to hear they can bring back Bloefeld... Maybe they can make the character a little more consistent this time around. Skyfall was basically the conclusion of a trilogy about Bond becoming Bond. Which left me with very excited to see the next chapter... But Please no jet packs, or invisible cars.
Something that confused me... The new M was seen at the end of Skyfall in an office that appeared identical to the office in the early movies... Which was in the old MI-6 building... The architecture doesn't really fit the new building either...
re: Bond 24
Uggggh. Says the guy who thought the best villain for The Next Generation cast was Picard's evil clone which fell incredibly short since the only thing the two had in common is that they don't have hair on top of their heads. When it comes to John Logan, my expectations are very low. Especially if he wants to repeat what he thought made the last Bond a success i.e. Bond being terrible at his job.
Uggggh. Says the guy who thought the best villain for The Next Generation cast was Picard's evil clone which fell incredibly short since the only thing the two had in common is that they don't have hair on top of their heads. When it comes to John Logan, my expectations are very low. Especially if he wants to repeat what he thought made the last Bond a success i.e. Bond being terrible at his job.
Attachments
re: Bond 24
They're in the Universal Exports building now. The old Bond films never had M at the MI6 building until Brosnan. The problem of course being that anyone going in or out would be able to be identified.
They're in the Universal Exports building now. The old Bond films never had M at the MI6 building until Brosnan. The problem of course being that anyone going in or out would be able to be identified.
darthgordon
Sr Member
re: Bond 24
True, but I got the impression that they planned to use it in the next movie by having Moneypenny set up in the front... And the fact that it looked remarkably similar to the old office... Not identical, mind you. The sets often changed from movie to movie.
True, but I got the impression that they planned to use it in the next movie by having Moneypenny set up in the front... And the fact that it looked remarkably similar to the old office... Not identical, mind you. The sets often changed from movie to movie.
darthgordon
Sr Member
re: Bond 24
Oooohhh... I see...
Oooohhh... I see...
