Who killed James Bond ?
- Thread starter Alan Castillo
- Start date
Which explains why it's one of the Bond films I least like :lol
- - - Updated - - -
:lol
Watch Skyfall, he has resurrection powers!
I will, tonight
Monkey67
Sr Member
Casino royal set the tone for the new version of Bond. It's a pretty good movie with understanding of what made him the way he was. Brings in the darker side of bond and updates to today's style of spy. QoS was terrible, but the plot was ok once you understood what's going on. Skyfall was great and being an old school bond fan I wasn't disappointed. Tons of stuff from the other movies and inside jokes to be heard. Plus you get a classic villain instead of upper level goons.
I'm officially diagnosing you as insane. :lol
However, as you said that they are ALWAYS there here's a list of Bond films that miss at least one of your criteria prior to Casino Royale:
- Dr. No
- From Russia with Love
- On Her Majesty's Secret Service
- Live and Let Die
- For Your Eyes Only
- The Living Daylights
- License to Kill
And of the ones not mentioned there most of the remaining don't actually meet the criteria of "trying to destroy the world" or even trying to start war. For instance, Goldfinger is simply trying to increase the value of his assets. SPECTRE is extorting money with hostage nukes. Elektra is trying to increase petrol prices.
You, sir, have been debunked.
Good lord man, trying to nit-pick at the nitty gritty detail of having to have all the 'criteria' I ranted on about at 7am on my first cup of coffee is a poor attempt to hide your frustration at me being right : The essence of Bond is dead, kaput, gone, ciao cherrio goodbye.
:lol
And Craig sucks too :lol
I will find you and destroy you... With a Walther PPK and no witty comment! :lol
Why ? Just pick a cool Bond gadget from QoS instead.
Oh, wait a minute ..... :lol
Or use the villain's weapon.
Oh, wait another minute, bit hard to use a dam unless you throw me off it :lol
Or you could always strangle me with the Algerian Love Knot necklace chain from Casino Royale, or stuff a Poker Chip down my throat if you wish :lol
I want Bond back :cry
Last edited:
Point was that no gadgets are required. Much like most of the best Bond films.
Oh, and you've got a run on sentence there. Further proving you wrong. :lol
Point was that no gadgets are required. Much like most of the best Bond films.
That's like saying Superman has no X-Ray vision, Spiderman has no shooters ..... and Yoda is a gremlin in disguise !!
Heretic !
:lol
Got me there. I yield :lol
lollol:lol:thumbsup
Bigdaddy
Master Member
Personally as I attempt to re-watch all the bond films, I find myself having a hard time with Moore, even though he was THE Bond for me when I was growing up. When we watched TMWTGG Chris Lee is the only thing that kept my daughter in the room ...barely :lol . The Moore films have to be mainly viewed as comedic to me, I just can't buy him as a bad-ass, or particularly charming. I found that now I actually prefer the Bond that relies more on his cunning to use his surroundings (like MacGyver...only WAY cooler! ). I think you are right though, as far as new films go the campy version of Bond that can't fight his way out of a paper sack is no moore !
There's always seven films to enjoy if you prefer Bond-Lite.
). I think you are right though, as far as new films go the campy version of Bond that can't fight his way out of a paper sack is no moore !There's always seven films to enjoy if you prefer Bond-Lite.
Solo4114
Master Member
We had another thread here, before it got locked, that was all about the run-through of the Bond series (which looks AMAZING on the remastered blu-rays, FYI). Great thread, in my opinion.
While I think there are aspects of almost all the Bond films that are good, there are definitely painfully bad Bond films, and Moore's era is full of them.
I was introduced to Bond films with Goldfinger on VHS when I was 9 or 10. I saw The Living Daylights in theaters that same year. I started reading the Bond novels in my mid-20s and WHOA are they good. I'd been irritated with Bond films after seeing Die Another Day, so I found Casino Royale to be a welcome change of pace.
In my opinion, there's really more of a continuum of Bond elements, rather than two absolute schools of thought. You can have good Moore movies (e.g. For Your Eyes Only, and to a lesser degree, The Spy Who Loved Me), but there are also atrociously bad ones (e.g., Moonraker, The Man With the Golden Gun). And there are ones which are in between (Live and Let Die, From a View to a Kill). And there are great Connery films (e.g. the first three), lousy ones (Diamonds are Forever), and in between ones (You Only Live Twice).
To my way of thinking Bond is at his best when he doesn't rely on excessive gadgetry, when he's ruthless at his job, when he's fallible and vulnerable, and when his success is a result of his overcoming his vulnerabilities/foibles and triumphing due to his grit, wit, and fortitude. Bond is at his worst, when he's a pun-machine, when he has plot-device gadgetry (e.g, stuff that is only useful for one scene) or when his gadgets are just...stupid (e.g. INVISIBLE ****ING CAR), when he's like a comic book superhero (e.g. windsurfing on a hunk of metal to outrun an explosion or avalanche), and when he's a freaking know-it-all with encyclopedic knowledge. BYou can mix and match elements from both columns to greater or lesser degree, and still end up with an overall good Bond film (the Connery era did this with Thunderball, which, in my opinion is the film and story that REALLY "killed" Bond), and you can hew heavily in one particular direction and still end up with a crappy Bond film (e.g. Quantum of Solace).
ond FILMS are at their best when they pair him against a charismatic, legitimately dangerous villain, and stick to a solid story that works because the story stands on its own. They're at their worst when the villain is a one-note figure, bent on "world domination" or some similar scheme, and when they try to cash in on popular trends (e.g., martial arts, laser space battles, and topical villains). Again, you can still mix and match here and end up with an overall good film, but you can also end up with crap. Really, though, I most appreciate when Bond ISN'T formulaic, and a vast swath of the Bond franchise is built on formula, to the extent that at least three films are basically the exact same film just slightly repackaged (You Only Live Twice, The Spy Who Loved Me, and Moonraker).
I think that Skyfall heralds a new era. Casino Royale was almost like Doctor No, in that it stripped everything back to basics. No gadgets, a sinister organization, Bond vulnerable, etc. Quantom of Solace went too far in the direction of emulating the Bourne films, and ended up a poorly edited mess (behind which is hidden a decent movie). With Skyfall, though, I think we're back to a sense of equilibrium. We're no longer trying to run away from the past style, but we're also not adopting it wholesale because the formula demands it. We'll still see Bond as vulnerable and relying on minimal gadgetry, and not making quips after kills, but we've got a new "M" who knows and respects Bond, having fought beside him, and who is back to the original "M"'s office. I can't help but think that signifies a shift in styles, albeit one of degrees rather than a complete abandonment of one style in favor of another. Rather, it's a melding of styles, that will (I hope) be at once familiar to the old-school Bond-film fans, and fresh in its independence from formula.
While I think there are aspects of almost all the Bond films that are good, there are definitely painfully bad Bond films, and Moore's era is full of them.
I was introduced to Bond films with Goldfinger on VHS when I was 9 or 10. I saw The Living Daylights in theaters that same year. I started reading the Bond novels in my mid-20s and WHOA are they good. I'd been irritated with Bond films after seeing Die Another Day, so I found Casino Royale to be a welcome change of pace.
In my opinion, there's really more of a continuum of Bond elements, rather than two absolute schools of thought. You can have good Moore movies (e.g. For Your Eyes Only, and to a lesser degree, The Spy Who Loved Me), but there are also atrociously bad ones (e.g., Moonraker, The Man With the Golden Gun). And there are ones which are in between (Live and Let Die, From a View to a Kill). And there are great Connery films (e.g. the first three), lousy ones (Diamonds are Forever), and in between ones (You Only Live Twice).
To my way of thinking Bond is at his best when he doesn't rely on excessive gadgetry, when he's ruthless at his job, when he's fallible and vulnerable, and when his success is a result of his overcoming his vulnerabilities/foibles and triumphing due to his grit, wit, and fortitude. Bond is at his worst, when he's a pun-machine, when he has plot-device gadgetry (e.g, stuff that is only useful for one scene) or when his gadgets are just...stupid (e.g. INVISIBLE ****ING CAR), when he's like a comic book superhero (e.g. windsurfing on a hunk of metal to outrun an explosion or avalanche), and when he's a freaking know-it-all with encyclopedic knowledge. BYou can mix and match elements from both columns to greater or lesser degree, and still end up with an overall good Bond film (the Connery era did this with Thunderball, which, in my opinion is the film and story that REALLY "killed" Bond), and you can hew heavily in one particular direction and still end up with a crappy Bond film (e.g. Quantum of Solace).
ond FILMS are at their best when they pair him against a charismatic, legitimately dangerous villain, and stick to a solid story that works because the story stands on its own. They're at their worst when the villain is a one-note figure, bent on "world domination" or some similar scheme, and when they try to cash in on popular trends (e.g., martial arts, laser space battles, and topical villains). Again, you can still mix and match here and end up with an overall good film, but you can also end up with crap. Really, though, I most appreciate when Bond ISN'T formulaic, and a vast swath of the Bond franchise is built on formula, to the extent that at least three films are basically the exact same film just slightly repackaged (You Only Live Twice, The Spy Who Loved Me, and Moonraker).
I think that Skyfall heralds a new era. Casino Royale was almost like Doctor No, in that it stripped everything back to basics. No gadgets, a sinister organization, Bond vulnerable, etc. Quantom of Solace went too far in the direction of emulating the Bourne films, and ended up a poorly edited mess (behind which is hidden a decent movie). With Skyfall, though, I think we're back to a sense of equilibrium. We're no longer trying to run away from the past style, but we're also not adopting it wholesale because the formula demands it. We'll still see Bond as vulnerable and relying on minimal gadgetry, and not making quips after kills, but we've got a new "M" who knows and respects Bond, having fought beside him, and who is back to the original "M"'s office. I can't help but think that signifies a shift in styles, albeit one of degrees rather than a complete abandonment of one style in favor of another. Rather, it's a melding of styles, that will (I hope) be at once familiar to the old-school Bond-film fans, and fresh in its independence from formula.
CB2001
Master Member
It's not who. It's what. And the what is the fact that times have changed. The way James Bond was wouldn't work nowadays. It worked in the 1960s and 1970s, but the James Bond of the past wouldn't last three minutes in the field these days. It was either update or let the franchise die.
Similar threads
