James Bond: Skyfall
- Thread starter Monster Dave
- Start date
Solo4114
Master Member
But the editing would've made it impossible to tell they were boats. There would've been solid objects, water, and the sound of fists hitting flesh. That's what you would've gotten out of it.
And frankly, I'm not enthused about Q either. I liked the de-emphasis of gadgetry. I wouldn't mind there being a minor thing like "Your PDA is equipped with a scrambler and a set of algorithms that may help you pick the lock at the security tower. Beyond that, though, Bond, you're on your own." But not "Oh, and it has an ejection seat, laser cannons, and it can turn invisible."
Monster Dave
Sr Member
But Q was a significant part of what made Bond exciting. Without the gadgets, he's just another Jack Bower wanna-be.
I am excited for this. Good director, great actors, and hopefully a fresh start from Quantum of Solace.
Brosnan has no nuance. He is just a typical hunk.
Q could be a problem because the character is too much of a deus ex machina. He is there to provide the thing that will obviously save everyone in the end. If the writers do it right, he'll be a small part.
Brosnan has no nuance. He is just a typical hunk.
Q could be a problem because the character is too much of a deus ex machina. He is there to provide the thing that will obviously save everyone in the end. If the writers do it right, he'll be a small part.
:facepalm
Um, Bauer is the Bond wanna-be.
It's not just the gadgets, but it's also their interactions with each other. Bond loves to tease Q by fiddling with his gadgets, and Q loves to lecture Bond on how he should be properly handling his equipment. It's situations like this where they're supposed to be serious, but they both seem to take some joy in getting the upper hand on one another.
Solo4114
Master Member
No, without gadgets, he's the James Bond that millions of readers first fell in love with. Without gadgets, he's a guy who wins because of his grit, determination, smarts, and toughness -- like he did in the novels which any Bond fan should really take time to read.
Bond in the novels is not this all-knowing, always-prepared-with-a-deus-ex-machina-toy guy. He's a tough, competent agent.
I think the best depictions of this are in Casino Royale, Dr. No, and From Russia with Love. I'd say that Casino Royale-level or From Russia With Love-level gadgetry is as much as I want to see. An attache case with some hidden tools? Fine. Acceptable as long as they aren't things like grappling hook watches and explosive toothpaste. The defibrillator in the car in Casino Royale was alright. It was gadgetry, yeah, but not TOTALLY over-the-top gadgetry.
Bond in Dr. No is a classic example of what I want to see. Watch how he sets up his hotel room. He does simple tradecraft of the spy by doing things like taking a hair from his head and sticking it to the doorframe. This lets him know his room's been tampered with when he returns and the hair is gone. He didn't need a special belt-mounted infrared night-vision video camera to play back a 3D hologram of his room being searched by enemy agents. The hair was gone. That was enough, and it was out of his own ingenuity (well, actually, probably training).
Likewise, I like that Bond knows stuff but isn't all knowing. Bond in the novels knows about the finer things in life because (A) he didn't grow up having them already, and (B) they are his refuge for the daily grind when he isn't in the field and how he forgets his field work (which simultaneously thrills and disgusts him).
Bond in the films, on the other hand, can pick out the vintage of brandy grapes even if the brandy itself doesn't list a vintage, or whatever.
So, like I said, some level of gadgetry, some level of sophistication. But keep it to a minimum. Don't get me wrong. I like much of the old school Bond. But I'm done with it. I have the older films and that's enough. And I don't trust them to make an effective gadget-laden film anymore. Not when their last outing with gadgetry produced AN INVISIBLE FREAKING CAR. Seriously. WTF?! It just gets stupid after a while.
Over-reliance on gadgetry or get-out-of-peril-free devices ruins heroes. The same thing applies to Batman and Superman. When Superman can just use some made-up-on-the-spot power to get out of trouble, it makes him LESS heroic, not more. And while we can accept a level of gadgetry from Batman, when he simply gets out of trouble because he has a Bat-Get-out-of-this-specific-bad-situation device on his belt, it makes him LESS heroic, not more.
When Spielberg said he wanted to do a James Bond film, Lucas convinced him to do Indiana Jones instead. Ironically, Indiana Jones in the films is a LOT closer to the literary version of Bond than the film version of Bond is, precisely because he wins by being smart and tough, not loaded with kewl toys.
Bond in the novels is not this all-knowing, always-prepared-with-a-deus-ex-machina-toy guy. He's a tough, competent agent.
I think the best depictions of this are in Casino Royale, Dr. No, and From Russia with Love. I'd say that Casino Royale-level or From Russia With Love-level gadgetry is as much as I want to see. An attache case with some hidden tools? Fine. Acceptable as long as they aren't things like grappling hook watches and explosive toothpaste. The defibrillator in the car in Casino Royale was alright. It was gadgetry, yeah, but not TOTALLY over-the-top gadgetry.
Bond in Dr. No is a classic example of what I want to see. Watch how he sets up his hotel room. He does simple tradecraft of the spy by doing things like taking a hair from his head and sticking it to the doorframe. This lets him know his room's been tampered with when he returns and the hair is gone. He didn't need a special belt-mounted infrared night-vision video camera to play back a 3D hologram of his room being searched by enemy agents. The hair was gone. That was enough, and it was out of his own ingenuity (well, actually, probably training).
Likewise, I like that Bond knows stuff but isn't all knowing. Bond in the novels knows about the finer things in life because (A) he didn't grow up having them already, and (B) they are his refuge for the daily grind when he isn't in the field and how he forgets his field work (which simultaneously thrills and disgusts him).
Bond in the films, on the other hand, can pick out the vintage of brandy grapes even if the brandy itself doesn't list a vintage, or whatever.
So, like I said, some level of gadgetry, some level of sophistication. But keep it to a minimum. Don't get me wrong. I like much of the old school Bond. But I'm done with it. I have the older films and that's enough. And I don't trust them to make an effective gadget-laden film anymore. Not when their last outing with gadgetry produced AN INVISIBLE FREAKING CAR. Seriously. WTF?! It just gets stupid after a while.
Over-reliance on gadgetry or get-out-of-peril-free devices ruins heroes. The same thing applies to Batman and Superman. When Superman can just use some made-up-on-the-spot power to get out of trouble, it makes him LESS heroic, not more. And while we can accept a level of gadgetry from Batman, when he simply gets out of trouble because he has a Bat-Get-out-of-this-specific-bad-situation device on his belt, it makes him LESS heroic, not more.
When Spielberg said he wanted to do a James Bond film, Lucas convinced him to do Indiana Jones instead. Ironically, Indiana Jones in the films is a LOT closer to the literary version of Bond than the film version of Bond is, precisely because he wins by being smart and tough, not loaded with kewl toys.
SmilingOtter
Master Member
Amen.
Double amen. I can put up with clever gadgets, (Connery's gyrocopter, Moore's wrist darts) but that, for all intents, was sci-fi.
Double amen. I can put up with clever gadgets, (Connery's gyrocopter, Moore's wrist darts) but that, for all intents, was sci-fi.
Solo4114 has got it right. A story is more compelling with MORE challenges, not these quick fixes to get the story moving.
Good TDK example is: Plot point- 2 officers dead in an apartment. leads to, bullet in wall, leads to, I have all the technology in the world, leads to, I am in an empty apartment while joker shoots the mayor.
It is horrible writing because it all hinges on impossible tech that makes no sense. Stories cannot be told this way.
Good TDK example is: Plot point- 2 officers dead in an apartment. leads to, bullet in wall, leads to, I have all the technology in the world, leads to, I am in an empty apartment while joker shoots the mayor.
It is horrible writing because it all hinges on impossible tech that makes no sense. Stories cannot be told this way.
Kerr Avon
Master Member
The helicopter with the 800 buzz saws on it. Like helicopters are stable enough platforms to use a buzz saw to cut a car in half. :behave
He's waiting with his classic Walther PPK in his hand. If he doesn't look like Bond, he's doing a good job.
General gadgets are okay. But those hi tech hi dollar impossible plot escapes are stupid. How does Q know Bond will need a laser in his wristwatch or an exploding keyfob? He carries it that one time, and he needed it that one time.
Keep it within known physics as well. Where's the power source for a laser watch? How do you get an x-ray tube into a cell phone? They don't have that in Star Trek for petes sake.
Keep it within known physics as well. Where's the power source for a laser watch? How do you get an x-ray tube into a cell phone? They don't have that in Star Trek for petes sake.
Worse. Star Trek has technobabble science. Want to do time travel safely through a black hole, and destroy a planet the next? Split a huge ship in half? There's a floating piece of red lava lamp wax that can do all of those things.
d_jedi1
Sr Member
I know I'm not the only one to state it but the Bond in the novels had VERY few gadgets. I often joke that the only three he carried were his wits, his fists, and his wristwatch (that he used at least once as a fistpack).
I would LOVE to see the Bond NOVELS made into films. I know they'd be politically incorrect and have to be "period pieces" but I'd love every second of it.
Java
Sr Member
Similar threads
